get_build_console_output

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state safety, error conditions (e.g., build not found), or output format beyond 'console output'. Filtering behavior is described, but full transparency is lacking.

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 a standard docstring with a one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 presence of an output schema (relieving need to describe return type), the description covers parameters and basic behavior. However, it lacks usage examples, error handling notes, and context about when to apply filters. For a tool with 5 parameters and filtering logic, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compensates well. Each parameter (fullname, number, pattern, offset, limit) is explained with semantics like 'regex pattern to filter lines' and 'if None, get the last build'. The order of operations (filtering then offset/limit) is clarified.

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 console output of a specific build in Jenkins', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_build, get_build_artifact, and get_build_test_report by specifying 'console output'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, with 32 sibling tools, the description does not provide context such as 'use this for raw console logs' or mention alternatives.

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