jenkins_system_info

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 says the tool 'shows' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state it performs no mutations, doesn't describe the output structure beyond listing content categories, and doesn't mention any auth requirements or session prerequisites beyond passing a session_name. For a system diagnostic tool, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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: three sentences that establish purpose and content categories, plus a minimal Args section. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is little waste, though it could drop the Args block since it adds marginal value over the input schema.

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 an output schema and 1 optional parameter, so it's not highly complex. The description covers what the tool retrieves (version, JVM, system properties, environment) but doesn't mention return value structure despite having an output schema — though the output schema itself would provide that. It's adequate for a read-only diagnostic tool but could benefit from noting this is a safe/non-mutating operation and any requirements for it to work (e.g., connected session).

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 only 1 parameter (session_name) and 0% schema description coverage, the description mentions 'Session: Jenkins session to use' for the param in the Args section. This adds minimal meaning — it states the parameter selects a session but doesn't explain what a session is, how to create one, or what happens if the default is used. The schema already has the parameter defined with a default, so the description adds only the word 'Jenkins session.' Baseline 3 is roughly appropriate but the description could add more value given low coverage.

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 the tool gathers comprehensive Jenkins system information, listing version, JVM info, system properties, and environment overview. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and specific resource ('Jenkins system info'), and is reasonably distinguishable from other system-level siblings like jenkins_status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jenkins_status or jenkins_list_nodes. It doesn't state when to prefer system_info over status, nor does it explain what distinguishes system-level information from other info-gathering tools. The context is minimal and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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