a4a_repair_publications

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight and does disclose meaningful traits: a hard cap of five copies, exact signed-event-only copying, and targeting original still-configured nodes. It omits permission requirements, what happens when a copy fails or a node is gone, and any rate/idempotency semantics for a repair operation.

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 sentences: the action and its limit first, then the copying rule, then the explicit exclusions. No filler and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and zero parameters remove schema burden. The description covers the action, its limit, and its scope. What is still missing is failure/retry outcome behavior and authorization context, which matters for a repair tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies the scope is derived from stored publication state rather than from arguments.

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') and resource ('due copies of already authorized public announcements'), which is far more precise than the sibling tools that only publish or discard publications. It does not explicitly contrast with a4a_publication_status, which an agent might also reach for when a publication looks stuck.

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 implies the trigger condition ('due copies') and enumerates what it does not do (profiles, requests, mandates, private messages, new addresses), which usefully scopes it away from publish/discard siblings. It never names a specific alternative tool or says when to check status instead of repairing.

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