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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retry a failed post,' which adds no information beyond the tool's name. It does not mention side effects, whether it creates a new attempt, required permissions, or failure/retry behavior. This is effectively a tautology.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, earning credit for conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimal, lacking essential behavioral context. It is efficient but at the cost of completeness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the tool is simple, but the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'retry' entails (e.g., whether it reschedules, republishes, or creates a new attempt), nor how it relates to sibling tools like post_attempts or publish_draft. The description is not sufficient for reliable invocation in a broader context.

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 schema has one parameter, postId, with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not explain postId's meaning or format beyond the name itself. While postId is self-explanatory, the description adds no value in clarifying the parameter's role or constraints, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retry') and resource ('a failed post'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_post or publish_draft, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and non-tautological.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'a failed post' implies it should be used after a post fails, but the description does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, this lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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