build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return fields (build number, status, duration, displayName, description) and the two operational modes, which provides some transparency. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects, limiting the behavioral detail.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the functionality and explicitly lists the return values, which is sufficient for the complexity. It does not need to elaborate further on errors or prerequisites given the straightforward read operation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described ('Jenkins job name' and 'Build number (omit for latest)'). The description adds context by stating the overall purpose but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 a specific action ('Get the status of a build') and resource ('a specific build or the latest build of a job'), and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'job_details' or 'build_history' by focusing on build status outcomes. The return fields (build number, status, duration) are also listed.

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 for retrieving build status (e.g., 'of a specific build or the latest build of a job') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so guidance is only implied.

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