trigger_build

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.