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. It discloses that the retry uses the same spec including existing files, but says nothing about whether a new build is created, side effects on the failed build, permissions required, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object lead, and the parenthetical detail about spec reuse is compact and informative. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool, the description conveys the core action and spec reuse. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves open important context such as return values, whether the failed build is replaced, and any asynchronous behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the single parameter buildId is fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the failed build to retry.' The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Retry') and resource ('a failed build') with the key qualifier that it reuses the same spec (story, acceptance criteria, stack, existing files). This distinguishes it from build_from_spec, which would require a fresh spec, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like continue_build or build_from_spec.

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 phrase 'Retry a failed build' implies the context of use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as continue_build, build_from_spec, or build_feature. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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