build_history

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 states the core behavior (showing builds with status, duration, timestamps) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or return format. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich; it adds little beyond the basic function.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It wastes no words and conveys the essential information clearly and efficiently.

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?

This is a simple read tool with no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose and explicitly mentions the key output fields (status, duration, timestamps), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. While it doesn't detail exact response structure, it provides enough context for most use cases. The absence of a list of alternative tools is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (count and jobName) with details like default and max values. The description refers to 'last N builds' which aligns with the count parameter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Get recent build history for a job.' It identifies the resource (build history) and the key output (last N builds with status, duration, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_status or build_console, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage context: use this tool to retrieve recent build history. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like build_status or build_console, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the reader to infer the appropriate situation.

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