scout_drain_retry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses re-running and archiving on success, but omits permissions, idempotency, rate limits, failure handling, and whether archiving is destructive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to missing context for a tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 output schema covers return values, but the input parameters are undocumented and no annotations exist. For a mutation/retry tool, the description should explain dry_run, limit, include_partial, and safety implications to be complete.

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 mention any of the three parameters: limit, dry_run, or include_partial. An agent cannot infer their meaning or effects from either source.

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?

States a specific verb ('Re-run') and resource ('captcha/failed jobs from raw/retry_queue'), plus the success effect ('archive on success'). The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as scout_doctor or scout_sessions.

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 when captcha or failed jobs exist in raw/retry_queue, giving some operational context. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for handling retry queues.

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