stop_build

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and object, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., build process termination), prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or behavior when buildNumber is omitted. This is minimal transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage of parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations and the omission of any behavioral nuances (like the optional buildNumber semantics in prose) leave it incomplete in a standalone context.

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 documents both parameters (jobName and buildNumber) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Stop/cancel' with the resource 'a running Jenkins build', clearly identifying the tool's action and object. This distinguishes it from sibling tool trigger_build, which starts builds.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trigger_build or build_status. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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