jenkins_start_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Iniciar' implies a write/mutation operation that triggers a Jenkins job, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is asynchronous/synchronous, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the key constraint. There's no wasted verbiage or 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 mutation tool (starting a Jenkins job) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after invocation (e.g., returns a build ID, triggers async execution), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters ('app' and 'branch') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters are used to start a job, but doesn't provide additional context like parameter relationships or 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 clearly states the action ('Iniciar' - start) and resource ('job de Jenkins') with a specific constraint ('con una rama específica' - with a specific branch). It distinguishes from siblings like jenkins_stop_job (stop vs start) and jenkins_get_job_status (get vs start), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., job must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if job is already running), or refer to sibling tools like jenkins_get_job_status to check status first. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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