get_build_test_report

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

The description indicates a read operation (get) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is minimally adequate.

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 and well-structured with an Args and Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. Given the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could be improved by mentioning potential errors or preconditions, but it is adequate for a simple getter tool.

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 by explaining both parameters: 'fullname' as the job's fullname and 'number' as the build number with a default behavior (if None, get last build). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('test report of a specific build'), and the context ('Jenkins'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_build' or 'get_build_artifact' by focusing specifically on test reports.

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 what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'get_build', 'get_build_artifact'). There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or recommendations for when not to use this tool.

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