retry_batch_call

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

Annotations already disclose the important behavior profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description contributes no additional context, such as what specifically gets re-executed, whether a new batch id is returned, or any error-state prerequisites. For a non-idempotent mutation, the description carries none of its own weight.

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 one-line description is not padded, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure, no front-loaded detail, and nothing an agent can act on beyond the name.

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 no output schema and a single undocumented parameter, the description should explain prerequisites, retry scope, and return behavior. It supplies none of this, leaving the agent unable to determine when retry is appropriate versus when to cancel or recreate the batch.

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% and the single required parameter batch_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about where batch_id comes from or what form it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (retry) and resource (batch call), so the basic purpose is legible, but it adds nothing beyond the tool name and gives no detail on what 'retry' means (re-run all calls, only failed ones, resume from failure point). It also does not distinguish itself from the many sibling batch tools such as create_batch_call, cancel_batch_call, or get_batch_call.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say what state a batch must be in for retry to be valid (e.g. failed/partial) or point to alternatives like create_batch_call to start fresh. The only context an agent gets is the tool name itself.

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