retry_login_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'signed webhook delivery' and 'retry', but doesn't explain what happens on retry—does it re-send only failed events or all? Are there rate limits or idempotency concerns? It doesn't state what happens to the session or whether it requires authentication. The description is too minimal to cover the safety profile for a retry action.

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—a single phrase—and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's so brief that it borders on under-specification; while it earns points for brevity, the ambiguity of 'notify' and missing details prevent a perfect score. It's not bloated, but it lacks clarity.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's meaning, the exact conditions for retry (what constitutes a 'failed notify'), or any side effects. This is a relatively simple tool, but the description leaves too much to inference. Given the siblings (e.g., webhook_allowlist_add), the description doesn't distinguish the retry mechanism.

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 description does not explain the meaning of the single parameter 'session_id'. The schema only indicates it's a string, but the description adds no context about what the session represents (e.g., a login session identifier) or how it relates to the retry. This is a significant gap because the parameter is required and the description offers no guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Retry') and resource ('signed webhook delivery'), clarifying what it does. However, 'after a failed notify' introduces ambiguity—what is a 'notify'? It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like webhook_allowlist_add, but the action is clear enough. The tautology risk is low because the description conveys the purpose, but it's not specific about the notification context.

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: retry after a failed notify. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the webhook is signed or if a session exists. The context of 'failed notify' is vague, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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