jenkins_replay_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (re-runs a build, script editing doesn't modify the Jenkinsfile) and clarifies that empty script = use original. However, it doesn't mention mutation impact, whether this triggers new runs, permission requirements, or what the return value looks like.

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?

Description is compact with a brief intro plus a clean Args block. The key 'without modifying the Jenkinsfile' clarification is valuable. Slightly redundant since Args mostly repeats titles, but overall efficient.

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 mutation action with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and the critical distinction (replay vs new build, script editing semantics). Has output schema which relieves need to document return format. Could add prerequisites (requires an existing pipeline build) but is reasonably complete.

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%, but the description includes an Args section explaining each of the 4 parameters: job_name (pipeline job name), build_number, script (modified script, empty=original), session_name (Jenkins session). This compensates for the schema gap, though it largely paraphrases the parameter titles without adding type or format detail.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Replay a pipeline build' with specific capability (optionally with modified Groovy script). Distinguishes from sibling jenkins_build by stating it re-runs an existing build and allows editing the script without modifying the Jenkinsfile.

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?

The description explains the core capability (re-running a build, editing script without touching the Jenkinsfile). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over jenkins_build or when not to use it, though the differentiation is fairly clear from the description.

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