Retry pipeline

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds specificity that only failed or canceled jobs are retried, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects like creating a new pipeline or duplicating runs. With annotations present, the description meets the minimum bar but does not exceed it.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with zero filler. It delivers the core message efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple mutation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any note on idempotency concerns (given idempotentHint=false) or behavioral outcomes beyond retrying. Given its simplicity, the gaps are not critical but could be improved with a note on when retries are allowed.

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 50%: only 'project' has a description, while 'pipeline_id' does not. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the gap. A brief mention of what pipeline_id refers to would be helpful.

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 the action (retry) and the resource (failed/canceled jobs in a GitLab pipeline), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_pipeline or retry_job. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retry_job for individual jobs, or when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving selection to the agent's interpretation.

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