get_queue_item

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

With no annotations the description carries full load, and it delivers real behavioral context: the response explains why an item is blocked, the 'executable' field appears once Jenkins starts the build, and completed queue records are only briefly retained. It stops short of declaring read-only status or permission/auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then lifecycle and caveats. Four sentences with little waste, though it is dense and packs several distinct points together.

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?

No annotations or output schema, so the description must supply everything. It covers response contents (block reason, executable fields), the calling workflow, an access constraint, and a retention caveat — nearly complete, missing only explicit read-only/permission framing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'item_id' parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains provenance ('Pass queue_id from trigger_build'), but the mismatch between the schema name 'item_id' and the description's 'queue_id' risks confusing the agent about what value to supply.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Follow one queued build from trigger to executor assignment.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_queue (list all), cancel_queue_item (cancel), and trigger_build (create).

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?

Names trigger_build as the source of the id and get_build_info as the downstream consumer, establishing the workflow context. It also states a hard constraint (owning job must match MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS), but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or contrast with get_queue.

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