job_details

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 discloses the output format ('table format') and the read-only nature implied by 'Get', but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or potential side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb and format.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, scope, and output format. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and one clear action.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved, for which job, and in what format. The only missing context is authentication prerequisite or behavior when the job does not exist, but these are likely implied by the surrounding tools and context. Overall, it provides sufficient information for selection and invocation.

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% as the sole parameter jobName is documented with a description and an example. The description adds no further semantic value about the parameter itself; 'specific Jenkins job' simply echoes the schema. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('build parameters'), and the scope ('specific Jenkins job'), with the added detail of 'table format' for output. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like build_status, build_console, and build_history, which cover different aspects of a job.

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 when build parameters are needed for a specific job, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no references to sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions. The 'specific Jenkins job' phrase hints at scope but does not elaborate on prerequisites or competing tools.

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