get_build_test_report

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 explains that if 'number' is None, the last build is used, which adds value. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if no build exists), or any side effects.

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, using a single sentence for purpose followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. No redundant words or information, and the structure is 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 presence of an output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, parameters with defaults, and return value. However, it lacks context about potential errors (e.g., build not found), prerequisites, and relationship with other sibling tools. It is nearly complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema), but the description fully documents both parameters: 'fullname' as the job fullname and 'number' as the build number (defaulting to last build). This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get the test report of a specific build in Jenkins', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'test report of a specific build'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_build' (which gets build metadata) and 'get_build_console_output' (which gets console logs).

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 implies usage for retrieving test reports from builds but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using 'get_build' for build details) or when not to use it. No exclusions are mentioned.

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