count_failed_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight: it counts based on 'last build' and 'FAILURE state'. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, performance, or whether the count is cached. Adequate for a simple read operation, but leaves gaps.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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 zero-parameter tool returning a simple count, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not specify scope (e.g., all jobs or filtered by permissions) or output format. Sibling tools exist but no comparison provided. Almost complete but minor ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description need not add param details. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as no further information is required.

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: count jobs with 'last build in FAILURE state'. It uses specific verb 'count' and resource 'Jenkins jobs', and is distinguishable from siblings that get status, log, or list jobs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'list_recent_failed_jobs' or 'get_build_status'. The purpose implies use for obtaining a count, but without contrast to siblings, the agent must infer selection criteria.

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