jenkins_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered without description effort. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — nested paths use slash-separated names or a list — but it discloses nothing about error behavior (e.g., job not found) or how the tree parameter shapes the response, leaving behavior beyond the path format unaddressed.

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?

Two sentences totaling 17 words with the core purpose front-loaded and a single clarifying clause about path syntax. Every sentence earns its place, and there is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a provided output schema and safety annotations, the description is close to adequate. The output schema excuses omitting return-value details, but the tree parameter remains completely undocumented, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling fetch tools. Error behavior is also unmentioned, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It does explain the job parameter's non-obvious format (slash-separated nesting or an array), which adds real meaning beyond the schema's anyOf type. However, it says nothing about the tree parameter, leaving the optional filter entirely unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Get one job by Jenkins job path.' The phrase 'one job' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jenkins_list_jobs. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with related fetch tools like jenkins_get_job_config or jenkins_get_json, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The use case is only implied — retrieve a single known job by its path — which suggests when an agent should pick it over listing jobs, but it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when needing job configuration instead.

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