jenkins_get_coverage_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('obtener'), but doesn't describe what format the coverage report returns, whether it includes summary vs detailed data, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient Spanish sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters in the schema. While it could be more informative, it doesn't waste words or include unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what type of coverage data is returned, how it differs from other coverage tools, or provide context about the Jenkins coverage reporting system. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying this tool retrieves coverage reports for builds. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how packageName and className refine the report) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Obtener reporte de cobertura de código de un build' clearly states the action (obtener/get) and resource (reporte de cobertura de código/coverage report), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like jenkins_get_coverage_lines or jenkins_get_coverage_paths. It specifies 'de un build' which helps somewhat, but doesn't clarify what type of coverage report this returns versus other coverage-related tools.

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. With multiple coverage-related siblings (jenkins_get_coverage_lines, jenkins_get_coverage_paths), there's no indication of what distinguishes this general 'reporte' from those more specific tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison context is provided.

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