get_build_artifact_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL and that the optional number parameter defaults to the last build. This is transparent for a read operation, though it could mention that no modifications occur. The absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 and well-structured with an Args and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (verb, resource, parameter meanings) 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's simplicity (3 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return value, and default behavior. It is complete for effective use.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: fullname (job fullname), relative_path (path with example), number (build number, nullable for last build). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'direct URL of an artifact from a specific build in Jenkins', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_build_artifact (likely returning file content) and get_all_build_artifacts. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 function of each parameter and the behavior when number is null (last build), providing clear context for use. While it does not explicitly compare to siblings, the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to use it (when a URL is needed). A slight deduction for lack of explicit alternatives.

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