build_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return value (queue item number) and the conditional behavior of build_type. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., queuing a build), failure scenarios, or permission requirements. It adequately covers the basic behavior but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It uses a clean list format for args and returns, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description need not detail return values beyond mentioning the queue item number. It covers all parameters and their roles, and the return type. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: fullname is 'The fullname of the item', data is 'parameters to trigger the build', and build_type is explained with a condition. This provides essential semantics beyond the schema's enum and type definitions. It could be more precise about the format of fullname.

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 'Build an item in Jenkins', indicating a specific action (build) on a resource (item). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on building rather than retrieving or configuring items. However, the term 'item' is slightly vague; Jenkins typically uses 'job', but context clarifies.

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 guidance on when to use 'buildWithParameters' and when the 'data' parameter is required. It implicitly tells the agent to use this tool for building items, and no sibling tool offers the same function, so no explicit when-not is needed. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit about prerequisites.

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