air_retry_assessment

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

The description reveals that the tool requires 'assessments:write' permission and consumes credits, adding behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). This helps the agent understand side effects.

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 sentence with an additional requirement clause, front-loading the essential purpose and constraints without extraneous text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and non-obvious side effects but lacks parameter documentation, which is a notable gap.

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 only parameter 'assessmentPid' is not described in the description; with 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what value to provide, reducing usability.

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 'Retry a failed assessment from the last completed stage', specifying the verb (retry) and resource (assessment), and distinguishes from siblings like 'start_assessment' or 'create_assessment_draft'.

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 the tool is for retrying failed assessments and mentions required permissions and credit consumption. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like re-running the full pipeline or fixing issues.

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