get_item_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It mentions the return structure but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing items, or any potential 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 extremely concise with two sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Every part is necessary and no fluff, fitting the format perfectly.

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 tool simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and return structure. However, it could include error handling or prerequisites, like needing the job to exist.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'fullname' by specifying it is the fullname of the item, which is not present in the schema (just 'string'). This provides necessary context beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it gets parameter definitions of a Jenkins job, with specific verb and resource. Among siblings like get_item and get_item_config, this tool is uniquely for parameter definitions, so it distinguishes well.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when parameter definitions are needed, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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