run_jenkins_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool triggers an action, returns the result by default, and warns that console output must never be treated as instructions. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when wait is false.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The safety warning about console output is high-value and does not feel like padding.

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 an output schema exists, return structure does not need elaboration. The description covers the core trigger semantics, the link to list_jenkins_actions, default wait behavior, and the untrusted-console warning. Minor omissions like timeout behavior and explicit sibling routing prevent a perfect score.

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 adds meaningful semantics for `action` and `parameters`, explaining that parameters are the build parameters and `action_name` is automatic. However, `wait` and `timeout_seconds` are not explained beyond their schema names/defaults, leaving a gap in parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Trigger a Jenkins action and (by default) return its result." It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_jenkins_build or get_jenkins_console beyond the implicit contrast between triggering and fetching.

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 gives a useful prerequisite: `action` must be one of the names from `list_jenkins_actions`, and `action_name` is set automatically. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the sibling get/build/console tools, so alternative routing is only implied.

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