get_build_parameters

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 dictionary and that omitting number fetches the last build. However, it fails to mention error handling (e.g., if build doesn't exist) or whether the operation is read-only. The behavioral details are adequate but not comprehensive.

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 one introductory sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple signature (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description explains what the tool does, how parameters affect behavior, and what is returned. No gaps remain for an agent to infer basic usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear meaning: fullname is 'The fullname of the job' and number is 'The number of the build, if None, get the last build'. This provides essential context beyond the schema types and defaults, fully compensating for the low coverage.

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 retrieves parameters of a specific build in Jenkins, using the verb 'Get' and resource 'build parameters'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_item_parameters (which gets item parameters) and get_build (which gets build details) by specifying 'parameters 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 when to provide the build number and defaults to the last build if omitted. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context of 'build parameters' implies a focused use case. A higher score would require mentioning when not to use this tool or suggesting alternatives.

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