job_retry

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses it's a write operation, async behavior, dry_run preview, and that it only retries failed objects. This is good coverage, though it could mention idempotency or side effects.

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 very concise yet informative, with a clear structure: purpose line, async note, inverse mention, dry_run hint, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While it explains async behavior and polling, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status). The mention of polling with session_list/session_get implies no direct result, but the return format is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all three parameters: job_id (Veeam job id), dry_run (preview), target (Veeam target from config). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retry a failed backup job (re-runs failed objects only)', which specifies the action and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'Inverse: job_stop'.

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 async nature with polling instructions and provides a dry_run option. It mentions the inverse tool job_stop, offering guidance on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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