jenkins_get_view

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. The description only states the action (get details + list jobs) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether a Jenkins connection is required, what happens if the view doesn't exist, or how many jobs might be returned. For a read-only retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 efficient and front-loaded — the purpose statement comes first, and the Args block is minimal. However, it could be tighter (the Args section adds negligible value since it just repeats parameter names). No waste, but some under-specification.

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?

With zero annotation coverage, 2 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, the description is too thin. It should explain what 'details' means (build status, health, configuration?), the return format, and the relationship between views and jobs in Jenkins. The presence of an output schema helps but the description doesn't provide enough operational context for a tool that must interact with a live Jenkins server.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so neither the schema nor the description provides parameter documentation. The description merely repeats the parameter names ('view_name: View name', 'session_name: Jenkins session to use') without adding meaning about formats, constraints, or how they affect behavior. With 2 parameters and zero coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states 'Get details about a view and list its jobs' with a specific verb (get) and resource (view). It clearly communicates the tool retrieves view details plus its jobs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job, list_views, and list_jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it loses a point.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_views, get_job, or list_jobs. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context. The implicit context (a view aggregates jobs in Jenkins) would help but is not stated.

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