get_build_artifact_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return value (a URL) and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a read operation, this is minimally acceptable but lacks detail on whether it triggers a build or other side effects.

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 heading, bullet-like parameter explanations, and a returns line. It is front-loaded with purpose. One could argue that the parameter descriptions could be integrated more succinctly, but overall it's well-structured.

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 (context signal shows 'Has output schema: true'), the description handles the return value adequately. The tool has simple parameters and low complexity, so the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that the URL is direct and accessible, but that's minor.

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?

The description adds meaningful descriptions for all three parameters: fullname, relative_path, and number. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is crucial and well done. The descriptions are clear and functional, though not extremely detailed.

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 'Get the direct URL of an artifact from a specific build in Jenkins' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_build_artifact (which likely returns the artifact itself) by focusing on the URL. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself among the many sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 implicit guidance on the 'number' parameter ('if None, get the last build'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build_artifact or get_all_build_artifacts. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use.

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