stop_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon stopping (e.g., graceful vs. forceful stop). The description merely states the action without depth.

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 brief sentence and an Args section. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, the Arg descriptions are missing, which slightly reduces structure clarity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain return values, success/failure behavior, or error conditions. For a stop action, it leaves the agent uninformed about consequences.

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%. The description only lists parameter names ('fullname' and 'number') without any additional meaning, such as format, constraints, or examples. It adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 verb 'stop' and the resource 'specific build in Jenkins'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_queue_item' which targets queue items, not builds. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'cancel_queue_item' or conditions for stopping a build. The description lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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