get_build_test_failures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: matrix builds return failures across all configurations with per-configuration URLs, and stack traces are truncated via max_stack_trace_length. However it omits permissions/auth needs and simply implies read-only via 'Get'.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then a docstring-style Args/Returns block. Efficient overall, though the Returns line partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

For a 4-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description documents every parameter and clarifies matrix and truncation behavior. The main gap is the absence of guidance relative to the near-identical sibling get_build_test_report.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all four parameters including non-obvious defaults ('number: if None, get the last build', 'limit: None for all of them') and the truncation semantics of max_stack_trace_length. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the failing tests of a specific build in Jenkins, with their error details') and adds a scoping detail about matrix builds. It is clear and distinct in scope from generic build tools, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_build_test_report.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_build_test_report. Usage is only implied by the word 'failing' and the returned error details.

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