retry_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Create'), which implies a side effect. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or what happens to the original task. While the core mutation is clear, additional behavioral details (e.g., whether the retry replaces the original execution or adds a new one) are absent. This is a basic, but not rich, 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and condition. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 retry tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential purpose and condition. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites beyond the task state, but given the simple complexity and available output schema, it is largely complete. A small gap is the lack of explicit clarification on what 'new execution generation' entails (e.g., new task ID), which might be relevant to an agent.

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 describes only task_id with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly detail the parameter, but the tool name and description (retry a task) make it clear that task_id identifies the task to retry. The meaning is strongly implied, but the description does not add explicit elaboration beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates through 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 ('Create a new execution generation') on a specific resource (a task), and narrows the scope to failed/canceled/blocked tasks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_task (which submits a new task) and cancel_task (which cancels). The verb+resource+condition 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?

The description explicitly defines the condition for use: 'for a failed/canceled/blocked task.' This gives clear context on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., submit_task for new tasks or get_task to inspect before retry), nor does it state when NOT to use it. The guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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