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 behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the validity gate, the rejection error for wrong states, and the mutation side effect ('the new run's receipt overwrites the old'). It omits permission/auth requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the validity gate, then the side effect. Every clause earns its place, and the most important constraint is front-loaded after the verb.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers validity, error behavior, and the overwrite side effect. Return values need not be explained since no output schema exists; only auth/permission context is missing.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already fully documents task_id. The description's reference to the failed task adds consistency but no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Re-dispatch') and resource ('a failed provider-call task'), scoping it to provider-call tasks so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like schedule_task or expedite_task. Purpose is 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?

Explicitly names the precondition (status must be 'failed') and enumerates the rejected statuses (queued/scheduled/running/submitted/completed) with the resulting error. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for non-failed tasks, so it is strong guidance without full routing.

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