Get build jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the purpose and scope (jobs of one build) but does not disclose additional behavioral details like return format, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety aspect, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and intended use without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key information (jobs of one Travis build) and includes the practical use case.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete. Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema covers parameter semantics, and the description states the purpose and use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (build_id) with a clear description of its format and meaning. The tool description does not add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: retrieving jobs of a single Travis build, including their state and stage, with the explicit purpose of finding which job failed. It distinguishes from siblings like get_build (build details), list_builds (build list), and get_job_log (job log) by focusing on job-level status for a specific build.

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 clear use case ('to find which job failed') and implicitly indicates when to use it: when you need job states and stages for a specific build. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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