get_failed_build_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention what happens if no failed build exists (e.g., returns empty or null), whether the output is truncated, or if special authentication is needed. Basic read behavior is implied but edge cases are missing.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and to the point. While some additional details could be added, it is not overly verbose and avoids redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format (e.g., plain text, JSON). It does not mention error conditions or whether the output is always the full log. For a simple tool, more context about returned content is needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter jobPath is well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves the console output of the last failed build for a Jenkins job. The verb 'Get' and resource 'console output' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_build_log (any build) and get_build_status (status only).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that get_build_log should be used for arbitrary builds or that count_failed_jobs is for count. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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