Get Commit Statuses

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

Annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds details on pagination (page_size, max_pages), a warning for excessive fetching, and the required plugin, providing full behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 paragraphs for usage, arguments, returns, and notes. It is slightly verbose but all sentences contribute meaningful 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?

Given 5 parameters, no enums, and existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, arguments, return format, and a prerequisite note. Annotations provide safety profile. Complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and maximums (e.g., max_pages default 1, max recommended 10). This adds significant value.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves build/CI statuses for a specific commit, differentiating it from PR-level status tools by mentioning 'without needing to create a Pull Request first.' This provides a clear verb+resource scope.

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 a clear use case ('check the Jenkins build status for any branch commit') and prerequisites ('Requires Jenkins Bitbucket Build Status Notifier plugin'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_pull_request_statuses.

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