Retry a paid eBook generation job that failed server-side. This re-queues the original job without charging again — use this whenever get_job_status reports a failed job that was previously paid for, instead of calling generate_ebook (which would create a new payment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID of the previously paid job that failed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two key behaviors: the operation does not charge again, and it re-queues the original job. This goes beyond a generic retry claim, though it doesn't cover potential side effects or return values.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and target; the second clarifies the usage context and alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 retry tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage triggers, and differentiation from alternatives. No missing information that would hinder correct selection or 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter job_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that it is the previously paid job, which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 applies.
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: 'Retry a paid eBook generation job that failed server-side.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool generate_ebook, which creates a new payment, making purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this whenever get_job_status reports a failed job that was previously paid for.' It also names the alternative (generate_ebook) and explains why not to use it (would create a new payment), offering clear exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct function: listing genres, generating, checking status, downloading, and retrying. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent can confidently select the right one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_genres, generate_ebook, get_job_status, etc.). This makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for an eBook generation service, covering the essential workflow without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: discover genres, generate, track progress, download the result, and retry failures. There are no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures in the core workflow.
