get_pending_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only the given build is inspected, explains the number=None last-build behavior, and highlights the pitfall where a paused build that is not the latest will not be found. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' statement, though it does not explicitly assert read-only/no-side-effect behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a usage context paragraph, and an Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, including the edge-case explanation about stale builds, and the most important usage guidance appears before the parameter details.

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 moderate complexity, two parameters, and an existing output schema, the description covers the call flow, the relationship to submit_input, the edge case with last-build resolution, and what the return value contains. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool is missing.

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 must compensate. It defines fullname as the job full name and number with the key behavior 'if None, check the last build,' which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It could include a path format example for fullname, but the provided semantics are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get the pending input steps of a specific build in Jenkins.' It clearly states the purpose and differentiates from sibling tools by explaining it is the precursor to submit_input and that it inspects only one build rather than finding builds generally.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call it when a pipeline shows 'Paused for Input' and before submit_input. It also explains when not to rely on the default last-build behavior and directs the user to get_running_builds to find a paused build that is no longer recent, which is clear exclusion and alternative guidance.

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