triggerBuild

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

The description simply states the action, and annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). However, beyond that, no behavioral traits are disclosed—e.g., whether the build is queued or started immediately, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the job is disabled. With no other annotations, the description should fill the gap but does not.

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 extremely short—one sentence with 7 words. While concise, it omits critical details that could be included in the same length (e.g., note that it triggers a new build immediately). The structure is efficient but incomplete for ideal usability.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters with a nested object), absence of an output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error cases, and typical use. Sibling tools like getBuild and updateBuild are richer; this tool's description lacks completeness to guide correct 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (jobFullName and parameters) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about parameter usage, constraints, or expected formats (e.g., the free-form parameters object could benefit from examples). Thus it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Trigger a build for a Jenkins job' clearly identifies the action ('trigger'), the resource ('build'), and the target ('Jenkins job'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getBuild (which fetches details) and updateBuild (which updates settings). However, it lacks nuance about scope (e.g., triggers a new build or re-triggers?) which prevents a perfect score.

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 updateBuild or getBuild. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., job must exist, job must be enabled) or context about scheduling vs immediate trigger. The description offers no decision support.

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