retry_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retry' but does not explain side effects (e.g., does it reset attempts, move the job, or require any permissions?). The agent gets no insight into what happens after invocation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it could benefit from slightly more context (e.g., 'from its original queue') without becoming verbose. It is efficient but minimal.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple operation. However, it lacks context about job state (must be failed), queue validity, and what happens after the retry (e.g., success/failure). Completeness is acceptable but not robust.

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 100%, so the schema already provides basic descriptions for jobId and queue. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond referencing a 'failed job', which is a usage constraint rather than parameter semantics. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'retry' and the resource 'a failed job', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_job (create), get_job (read), remove_job (delete), and promote_job (different action). It's 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., promote_job, add_job). No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no context about the job's state or queue existence. The description simply states the action.

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