get_jenkins_console

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the default behavior (returns the whole log), the tail_lines_count effect, and—critically—a security warning to treat content as untrusted data from remote systems. This adds real value beyond the schema, though it omits minor details like response format, which the output schema covers.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the default/tail behavior follows, and the security note closes it. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure leads with the most decision-relevant information.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. For a two-parameter tool it covers purpose, the configurable tail behavior, and a security consideration—enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only gap is richer context on what distinguishes the log from build metadata, which is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain tail_lines_count (pass above 0 to get trailing lines), which is the non-obvious parameter. But build_number—the only required parameter—receives no semantic explanation beyond what the schema's name implies, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read the console log of a Jenkins build') and states its purpose ('for debugging a failure'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_jenkins_build (build metadata), run_jenkins_action, and list_jenkins_actions, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'for debugging a failure' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool, and the tail-lines option further clarifies the common debugging scenario of inspecting only recent output. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving the contrast with get_jenkins_build implicit.

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