retry_parse

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

Annotations only state that it is a non-read, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds critical behavioral context the annotations cannot: a failed or unknown submission may already have been billed, this call reserves additional page quota, and upstream cannot guarantee single billing. For a cost-incurring action this is unusually valuable disclosure.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the most important constraint (only on explicit user retry), followed by cost warning and prerequisite. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description needn't explain returns, and it covers the gating rule, cost risk, and prerequisite thoroughly. The main gap is that two of three required parameters remain undefined, but for a guarded action tool the operational guidance is otherwise sufficient.

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 does explain how to obtain expected_revision (read it via get_parse_job), which is the highest-risk parameter, but it says nothing about job_id or user_note semantics despite both being required. Partial compensation only.

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 name and text make clear this re-runs a parse job ('重试' / retry), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_parse_job by telling the agent to read the revision there first. It does read more like a usage/policy note than a statement of what the operation does (e.g., it never says it re-enqueues a failed parse), but the verb+resource is inferable.

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 gives an explicit gating condition ('仅按用户明确重试决定调用' – only call on a user's explicit retry decision) and a concrete prerequisite ('先get_parse_job读取revision'), naming the sibling to use first. This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs on a costly, non-idempotent action.

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