get_all_build_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of artifact metadata dicts with specific fields (fileName, relativePath, displayPath). However, it doesn't discuss potential errors or side effects, though it's a read-only operation. The return format adds value 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 concise with a clear structure: purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but still helpful.

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's simplicity (listing artifacts with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return format and parameter behavior, covering all needed context.

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 meaning to both parameters: 'fullname: The fullname of the job' and 'number: The number of the build, if None, get the last build'. This explains the default behavior and provides context that the schema lacks.

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 'List the artifacts of a specific build in Jenkins', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_build_artifact' by focusing on listing all artifacts of a build.

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 explains the arguments and default behavior (if number is None, get last build). It implies when to use this tool (to list all artifacts of a build) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though it's clear enough.

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