rva_retry_unavailable_review

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the original artifact and failure remain auditable, settlement cannot replace a successful review, and scientific review rounds keep their original limit. Since annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description's extra constraints on auditability and round limits are valuable and do not contradict the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, each adding distinct value: the action, the audit preservation, the settlement exclusion, and the round-limit preservation. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and has no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 two-parameter retry tool, the description is largely complete: it states the trigger, the target gate types, and important invariants. It does not describe what happens if there is no previous failed review or mention the return/error behavior, but those gaps are acceptable given the focused scope and the presence of annotations covering safety characteristics.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the gate_type values by naming RESULT_REVIEW and NEXT_EXPERIMENT_REVIEW, and 'latest' implies task_id identifies the task whose most recent failed review should be retried. However, it never explicitly describes task_id's role or how it relates to the gate_type, leaving the agent to infer that from the tool name and context.

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 states a specific action ('retry'), a precise resource ('the latest RESULT_REVIEW or NEXT_EXPERIMENT_REVIEW'), and a clear condition ('after a FAIL_CLOSED RVA provider failure'). This distinguishes it from the sibling review tools like rva_review_result and rva_review_next_experiment, which initiate rather than retry a review.

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?

It explicitly scopes usage to FAIL_CLOSED provider failures and warns that settlement decisions, including BOUNDED_EXPERIMENT, cannot substitute for a successful RVA review. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools to use in other situations, but the conditions and exclusions are concrete enough for an agent to route correctly.

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