jenkins_get_queue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a read-only operation, but nothing confirms this explicitly (no mention of it being safe or non-destructive, which is important given the large family of mutating sibling tools). It also doesn't describe the return format or what the output contains beyond 'position and why they're waiting'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and efficiently written with a clear one-line purpose, followed by brief result context and a single Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with a single parameter and an output schema present. The description fronts the purpose and result summary well. However, given no annotations, it could have mentioned safe/read-only nature, and it could more explicitly distinguish itself from jenkins_get_queue_item for querying individual queue entries. Adequate but with room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description's 'Args: session_name: Jenkins session to use' provides the key semantic for the single parameter. The schema only supplies type ('string') and default ('default'), so the description adds the meaning that session_name identifies which Jenkins session to use — helpful but minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List all items currently in the Jenkins build queue' with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('build queue'). It also adds useful context about what's shown (jobs waiting, position, reason for waiting). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like jenkins_get_queue_item, but the distinction is reasonably clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jenkins_get_queue_item, jenkins_status, or jenkins_get_executor_status. There's no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context provided, and no mention of prerequisites like the session needing to be connected via jenkins_connect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.