Retry GitLab job

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

Annotations indicate openWorld true, idempotent false, readOnly false. The description does not disclose possible side effects of retrying (e.g., duplicate pipeline runs, new attempts), and the annotations are not enough to infer consequences.

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?

Two short sentences, concise and efficient.

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?

Two parameters and reasonable tool annotations are enough for a simple retry; multiple sibling tools provide extra context. Output schema is listed, so returns are not needed.

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?

The schema documentation adds the GitLab project ID/path format, but job_id remains without enriched description. With only 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing job_id semantics.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Retry a failed GitLab CI job') with clear scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this from retry_pipeline or play_job, but the term 'failed' narrows the intended use.

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 word 'failed' implies when to use, but there are no explicit exclusions (e.g., do not use for successful jobs) and no named alternatives.

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