get_build_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive. It adds the detail that specifying None for number fetches the last build, which is useful, but lacks disclosure on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 single sentence for purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The key information 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 no annotations and a moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description explains the core functionality and parameter behavior. However, it lacks context about what constitutes a 'script' in Jenkins, error scenarios, and whether the operation is safe. The output schema presumably details return structure, so that gap is acceptable.

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%, so the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It clearly defines 'fullname' as the Jenkins job fullname and 'number' as build number with the behavior of getting the last build when null. This adds full meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 tool gets scripts used in a specific Jenkins build, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_build (build info) and get_build_artifact (artifacts) by focusing on scripts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build or get_build_console_output. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the job name or build number beforehand.

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