retry_retry_http

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

Without annotations, the description discloses retry behavior (conditions, exponential backoff, optional jitter) but omits important details like maximum total time, timeout, or retry safety for non-idempotent requests. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers what the tool does and its retry behavior, though it could include a brief note on parameters without losing conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description does not sufficiently explain parameter usage or return format. It covers retry behavior but leaves out many details needed for correct invocation, such as how to structure headers or what the response includes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters like 'max_attempts' and 'delay_seconds' only by name, without explanation. The terms 'exponential back-off' and 'jitter' hint at some params, but the meaning of 'body', 'headers', etc., is not elaborated.

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 makes an HTTP request with automatic retry on failure, specifying retry conditions (network errors, 429, 5xx). This distinguishes it from the sibling http_http_request which likely lacks retry, and from retry_circuit_call which uses circuit breaker pattern.

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 explains when to use the tool (for retries on specific failures) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like http_http_request for single attempts. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or idempotency considerations.

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