actiond_job_retry

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

The annotations already flag readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, and idempotentHint: false. The description adds valuable context by explaining that retries take full time, may fail again, and are not idempotent, which aligns with the annotations without contradiction.

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 and well-structured: it states the action, the non-idempotent nature, the return value, and suggested follow-ups in just three sentences with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the purpose, behavior, output (job ID and plugin name), and follow-up actions. Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the next steps.

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 provides a full description of the single parameter 'id' as 'Job ID to retry', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 (re-queue) and resource (failed or cancelled CI/CD job). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like actiond_job_cancel or actiond_job_wait, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for failed or cancelled jobs) and provides follow-up guidance (use actiond_job_wait, or actiond_diagnose if failure recurs). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, leaving some room for inference.

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