jenkins_get_node_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Obtener el estado' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the status response might contain. For a tool that presumably interacts with a CI/CD system, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward status-checking tool and gets directly to the point with no wasted verbiage.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of status information is returned, what format it might be in, or how to interpret the results. Given the complexity of Jenkins build systems and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational 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 description mentions 'un nodo específico de un build' which relates to the 'nodeId' and 'buildNumber' parameters, but doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions clearly explain each parameter's purpose, so the description adds minimal value here. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Obtener el estado' - Get status) and resource ('de un nodo específico de un build' - of a specific node of a build), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jenkins_get_job_status' or 'jenkins_get_build_steps', which would require more specific language about what distinguishes node status from other status checks.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other Jenkins status tools, or what context would require checking node status specifically rather than job or build status. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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