get_build_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work here: it discloses that secret-like parameter names and password/token/credential classes are redacted, and that complex plugin values and action/change-set payloads are omitted. That is substantive behavioral disclosure about the shape and safety of the response. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, auth requirements, or behavior for a nonexistent build.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter semantics, then output caveats. Every sentence adds information and none is filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it summarizes the returned fields and flags redaction and payload omissions. The main gap is the undescribed required job_name parameter and no note on failure behavior when a build does not exist.

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 does explain build_number well (integer or aliases lastBuild/lastSuccessfulBuild/lastFailedBuild), but job_name is never described at all, leaving one of two parameters undifferentiated across schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one build's result') and enumerates exactly what is returned: result, timing, duration and parameters. That field list distinguishes it from siblings like get_build_console or list_running_builds without needing to open either schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the returned fields (build status/timing rather than console text), but the description never states when to prefer this over get_build_console, get_job, or list_running_builds, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is present only at the parameter level (alias values), not at the tool-selection level.

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