trigger_build

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

The description lacks behavioral details that annotations would typically provide. It does not disclose whether the build is triggered synchronously or asynchronously, what happens on failure, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient 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 is a single, concise sentence that captures the core functionality without extraneous words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns (e.g., build ID, status), error behavior, or side effects. The current description omits these essential details, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Both parameters (name and parameters) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely noting that parameters are optional. The semantics are clear from the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (trigger), the resource (a new build), and the context (Jenkins job with optional parameters). It distinguishes the primary function from sibling tools that analyze, retrieve, or retry builds, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 like retry_flaky_build or get_build. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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