get_build_console_output

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

The description reveals key behaviors: it can retrieve a specific build or the last build, filter lines with a regex, skip lines, and limit results. This goes beyond the basic 'get console output' and provides actionable behavioral details. Since no annotations exist, it adequately covers the safety profile (read-only).

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 clearly structured with bullet points for arguments and returns. It is relatively concise given the amount of information, though it could be slightly tighter. The main purpose 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 complexity (5 parameters, simple return), the description covers the essential aspects: input semantics and return value. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a straightforward read tool with an output schema, it is largely complete.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining each parameter (fullname, number, pattern, offset, limit) with their defaults and purpose, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool gets the console output of a specific build in Jenkins. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_build (build details) or get_build_artifact (artifacts), so the purpose is specific and well-differentiated.

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 each parameter in detail, including defaults and optionality, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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