Retry and Wait

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

The description details the polling mechanism, timeout, and return structure including timedOut, incomplete, and resultsError fields, adding context beyond annotations. Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), and the description properly communicates the mutating nature and expected outcomes.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, an auth requirement note, bulleted args, and return fields. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (retry and poll) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers auth, parameters, return fields, and post-use checks. It does not explicitly differentiate from retry_run, but the purpose is clear. Minor gaps: no mention of error scenarios beyond return fields.

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 high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds default values for pollInterval and timeout but omits min/max constraints present in the schema. For runDetails.runID and forceIgnoreWorkspaceStatus, the description provides simplified explanations compared to schema descriptions. Overall, it adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 Coalesce run and poll until completion or timeout,' specifying the verb (retry and poll), resource (failed Coalesce run), and expected behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like retry_run (likely no wait) and run_and_wait (starts new run).

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool (to retry a failed run) and provides context such as requiring Snowflake auth. It advises inspecting specific return fields before continuing, guiding post-invocation behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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