list_running_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: access scoping (jobs outside MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS are omitted) and payload truncation (plugin-specific executor/action payloads are not returned). It does not state ordering, volume limits, or that the call is a safe read, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what is listed, what is filtered, what to use next, and what is omitted. The core purpose is front-loaded with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does (job and build number) while stating what is excluded from the payload. Minor gaps around result ordering and whether the list is paginated keep it from a 5 for an unannotated listing tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to misinterpret and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies an unfiltered, no-argument listing.

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 ('List') and resource ('builds currently executing') plus the scope ('across the controller') and the fields returned ('their job and build number'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_queue (queued vs executing) and get_build_console (following a single build).

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?

Gives explicit routing advice: 'Use get_build_console to follow one,' which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also states a usage-relevant constraint (jobs outside MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS are omitted) but offers no other when/when-not guidance.

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