jenkins_list_folder_jobs

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 mentions 'recursive' which is a useful behavioral trait, but doesn't explain what happens with empty folders, whether the output includes nested job types beyond build jobs (e.g., pipelines, multi-branch), or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. With an output schema present, some return format is covered structurally, but error/edge-case behavior is undocumented.

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 with a helpful one-line purpose statement followed by a tight Args block. Each element earns its place. Could arguably benefit from a sibling distinction line, but it's appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a relatively simple listing tool with an output schema and only 2 parameters, this is mostly adequate. But given the sibling jenkins_list_jobs exists, a note distinguishing folder-scoped recursive listing from global listing would improve completeness. The description covers core semantics without being exhaustive, which is reasonable for a low-complexity tool.

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 the description must compensate, and it does. It provides concrete examples for folder_path ('my-folder' or 'parent/child-folder') which is genuinely helpful, and clarifies that session_name refers to the Jenkins session. However, it doesn't specify whether folder_path is required to be exactly formatted or what happens with root-level listing.

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 a specific verb+resource ('List all jobs inside a Jenkins folder') with the key modifier 'recursive', which distinguishes it from jenkins_list_jobs (which lists jobs without a folder scope). The purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool vs jenkins_list_jobs or other alternatives. The description implies usage (when you need jobs inside a folder) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling jenkins_list_jobs or clarify when recursive listing is appropriate versus get_job.

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