scan_multibranch_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a trigger (not a read) that causes branch discovery, but it omits meaningful side effects a caller needs, such as whether the scan may immediately kick off builds on newly found branches, what permissions are required, and whether the response is immediate or asynchronous.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and a rationale clause; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but leaves gaps: the lone parameter is unexplained, the return/behavior after triggering is unspecified, and the preconditions (e.g. that the job must actually be a multibranch pipeline) are unstated.

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 single parameter job_name has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description never references it, so there is no added meaning about naming, required format, or whether it must reference a multibranch job specifically. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 action (trigger a branch scan) on a specific resource (a multibranch Pipeline), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutation tools like trigger_build or create_multibranch_pipeline. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

The 'so newly pushed branches are discovered without waiting for the next scheduled scan' clause implies the scenario for using it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against alternatives such as waiting for the scheduled scan or calling trigger_build. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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