get_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the operation is a poll and describes the return contents, which communicates a read-only intent. However, it does not mention whether the tool blocks, how the console-log tail is truncated, or what happens for queued jobs without a build number yet.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and key return information are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the three parameters interact, what a caller should expect while a build is queued vs running, or how to interpret the returned building/result fields.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation, but it does not. job_name, queue_id, and build_number are only named in the schema; the description vaguely alludes to queue/build state, but never explains when each parameter is needed, what job_name alone returns, or how queue_id and build_number disambiguate the request.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('Jenkins queue/build state'), and states the return payload ('building/result and a console-log tail'). Its purpose is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like trigger_jenkins_job and abort_build, which act instead of query.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that it should be called after triggering a job, and no relationship to abort_build or other sibling tools. The verb 'Poll' implies repeated status checking, but the description leaves the workflow context unstated.

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