Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_build_statusC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status but doesn't add any context beyond that—no information about authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status response entails (e.g., success/failure, duration). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a build status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status output includes (e.g., success indicators, timestamps) or any behavioral nuances like error cases. For a tool that likely returns structured status data, this lack of context leaves the agent under-informed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for both parameters (e.g., 'buildNumber' can use 'lastBuild' for most recent, 'jobPath' specifies the path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('status of a Jenkins build'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_build_log' (which retrieves logs) and 'trigger_build' (which initiates builds). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb+resource combination in a way that highlights sibling differentiation beyond the obvious.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 scenarios where this tool is preferred over 'get_build_log' for status checks or 'trigger_build' for initiating actions. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid job path or build number, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

• trigger_buildC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Trigger a new Jenkins build' implies a mutation/write operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and what to expect after triggering. The schema covers inputs well, but for a tool that initiates builds, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'jobPath' and 'parameters', so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter usage, such as how 'jobPath' is formatted or what 'parameters' might include, but the schema adequately covers this.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Trigger') and resource ('a new Jenkins build'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_build_log' or 'get_build_status', which are read operations, but the verb 'Trigger' inherently distinguishes it as a write/mutation action. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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., needing job access), when not to use it (e.g., for read-only operations), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_build_log' for checking results. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• get_build_logB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't add context beyond that—e.g., it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'console output' entails (e.g., log format, size limits). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the console output of a Jenkins build.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with 2 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. It meets the basic requirement but has clear gaps, especially in behavioral transparency and guidelines.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('buildNumber' and 'jobPath') well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'use "lastBuild" for most recent'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the console output of a Jenkins build.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('console output of a Jenkins build'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_build_status' (which might return status metadata rather than console output), so it misses full sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 sibling tools like 'get_build_status' or 'trigger_build,' nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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