summarize_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency weight. It only says 'compact summary' without explaining what the summary includes, whether it's read-only (likely), or any other behavioral traits. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and return content.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words.

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 being a simple tool with no parameters, the description lacks crucial context. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON, text) or the depth of the summary. An agent may not know what to expect as output.

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 no parameters and is fully covered (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Score is at 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 clearly states the action ('Get compact summary') and the resource ('Jenkins build queue'), effectively communicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_status' which may provide broader status information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that it's read-only or that it's suitable for quick overviews.

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