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

Adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'WRITE — starts compute' warns that this consumes compute resources, and the statement that succeeded jobs are left alone sets expectations about blast radius. It could go further on whether retries are idempotent or what happens on repeat invocation, but this is solid added value.

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?

Front-loaded with the write/compute warning, and each sentence earns its place. The trailing 'Depot: CIService/RetryFailedJobs.' is internal implementation naming of marginal value to an agent.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile (write/starts compute), the exact retry scope, and the exempted cases. Annotations only supply destructiveHint, so the description carries the rest adequately; only repeat-invocation/idempotency behavior is left unspecified.

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% and the single workflow_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it (depot_ci_get_run_status, depot_ci_list_workflows). The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Retry ... failed and cancelled jobs in a Depot CI workflow') and delineates scope exactly: cancelled jobs, dependent skipped jobs, and succeeded jobs exempted. The scope phrasing also distinguishes it from the sibling depot_ci_retry_job (single job) without needing 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?

Clearly states when to use it (failed/cancelled jobs plus skipped dependents) and what it deliberately does not touch (succeeded jobs). It stops short of naming the alternative depot_ci_retry_job for the single-job case, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative routing is implied rather than explicit.

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