air_retry_assessmentRetry a failed assessment from its last completed stage to resume risk evaluation. Provide the assessment PID; requires write access and credits.
Retry a failed assessment from the last completed stage. Requires assessments:write and consumes credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentPid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the required assessments:write scope and that credits are consumed. The resumption-from-last-completed-stage behavior is also a useful disclosure, though it doesn't say what happens to prior partial results.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the auth/cost constraints appended. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and cost. It omits only minor details such as what the caller gets back or whether the retry is idempotent.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it says nothing about assessmentPid — not even that it identifies the failed assessment to resume. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from being worse than a baseline 3.
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 (retry), resource (assessment), and scope (resumes from the last completed stage), which distinguishes it from air_start_assessment and air_run_assessment_from_file. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 word 'failed' implicitly defines the selection condition — use this instead of starting fresh when a prior run failed. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is given, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.