retry_circuit_create

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

With no annotations, the description explains the circuit breaker's state transitions: trips after max_failures, stays open until reset_timeout, then allows a trial call. However, it doesn't address idempotency or behavior on duplicate names, leaving some gaps.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: one for purpose, one for behavior. No extraneous information; every word contributes.

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?

The description covers the core behavior but omits default values for optional parameters (max_failures, reset_timeout_seconds default to null) and what happens when they are null. With an output schema present, return values are not needed, but parameter defaults are missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining how max_failures and reset_timeout_seconds affect behavior. It does not cover the 'name' parameter but that is self-explanatory.

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 creates a named circuit breaker and explains its failure-handling behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like retry_circuit_call or retry_circuit_reset. It uses a specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage for setting up a circuit breaker before executing calls, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. More explicit guidance would be beneficial given the many retry-related sibling tools.

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