jenkins_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool outputs (active sessions, version, executor info, job counts) which is genuinely helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this performs any state-changing effects, whether it requires an active connection, or any side-effects beyond displaying status. Given zero annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 at three sentences plus an Args section. It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and the output breakdown follows immediately. YAML-style formatting is consistent. Minor waste in the blank line before Args, 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?

The tool has one simple optional parameter, a moderate output schema, and a clear read-only status-reporting purpose. The description covers what's displayed, which is the main concern. It could mention whether an active Jenkins connection is required, but for a status display tool of this simplicity, the coverage 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates by explaining session_name means 'Session to check (default: default)'. While the schema already declares the default value, the description clarifies the parameter's role as selecting which session to inspect. For a single optional parameter with a default, this is adequate.

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 'Show connection status and Jenkins system overview' with specifics on what's displayed (sessions, version, executor info, job counts). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like get_executor_status or system_info, though it doesn't explicitly name any differentiating sibling.

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 versus alternatives. There's no mention of what distinguishes it from jenkins_system_info or jenkins_get_executor_status, and no context like 'check after connecting' or 'use for diagnostics'. The purpose implies usage but doesn't state when-not-to-use it.

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