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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: whether the job must be in a failed state, whether retry resumes from the failed step or restarts, whether partial artifacts are discarded, or whether retries are rate-limited. For a mutation-like lifecycle operation this is a significant gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a stateful retry operation, the description should explain preconditions (job in failed state), effect on existing artifacts, and what a successful call returns. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer the tool's contract.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (captureJobId and notification_message are both documented in the schema), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which lands at the baseline 3.

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 verb 'retry' and resource 'capture' are identifiable, but the description never says what a 'capture' is or how this relates to the capture-job siblings (create_capture_job, get_capture_job, pause_capture). An agent can guess the gist but cannot confidently distinguish this from other capture-lifecycle tools without reading the schema.

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?

'After error' gives an implicit trigger condition, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternative (e.g., inspect with get_capture_job first, or start over with create_capture_job) and states no when-not-to-use condition.

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