jenkins_get_job_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that secrets may be redacted without Configure permission, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only (implied but not stated), idempotency, or locking effects, resulting in adequate but not thorough transparency.

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 consists of a single sentence covering both purpose and a behavioral caveat, with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action. However, it could be slightly expanded to briefly explain the parameter without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description fails to explain the parameter's meaning, which is essential for correct use. The output schema exists but is not described; while that is acceptable, the missing parameter guidance makes the description incomplete for an agent. Sibling differentiation is also absent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no explanation for the 'job' parameter. The parameter can be a string or array of strings, but the description does not clarify what kind of value (e.g., job name, full name, path) is expected. This is a critical gap for proper 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 clearly states the action 'Read job config.xml' and the resource 'config.xml', distinguishing it from siblings like jenkins_get_job which retrieves job info rather than the configuration XML. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a behavioral note about secret redaction based on permissions, which indirectly guides when to expect full output. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., jenkins_get_job) nor state prerequisites for using this tool, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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