Batch Job Duration Stats

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: parallel fetching of build history, a default result filter of 'SUCCESS' for clean averages, and a limit cap of 50. These details help the agent understand side effects and defaults beyond the schema.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence summary, a behavior note, a use-case sentence, and a minimal Args list. No fluff; every sentence adds value. The key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, behavior, use context, and all parameters comprehensively. Annotations handle safety traits. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden and succeeds by explicitly listing each parameter with meaning: job_names, tenant (default from env), result (default 'SUCCESS'), and limit (default 10, max 50). It adds context not visible in the schema, such as the rationale for the default result filter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get avg/min/max duration for multiple jobs in a single call.' It clearly states the batch scope, distinguishing it from single-job tools like get_job or get_build_times. The added detail about parallel fetching reinforces its unique function.

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 clear context: 'Designed for monitoring tools that need durations for an entire pipeline chain.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It conveys the batch vs. single-call distinction implicitly.

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