http_add_retry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to carry it. It does not state whether the tool modifies an existing HTTP client file, creates a new one, overwrites existing retry settings, or requires a pre-existing HTTP wrapper. No side effects, idempotency, or prerequisite information is disclosed.

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 single sentence is free of filler and front-loads the action, which is good. But it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized — omitting the target resource means the sentence is concise without being informative enough.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling pool containing at least four retry-related tools, one sentence is not enough context. Missing details include the target file or module, the meaning of api_key, the role of directory, and whether existing retry logic is replaced.

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 only 50%: directory is documented but api_key has no description. The description adds nothing about either parameter — it does not clarify what api_key authenticates or how directory anchors the retry insertion, leaving the undocumented parameter completely unexplained.

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 states a concrete action ('Add') and a specific policy ('exponential backoff'), so it is not a tautology. However, it never identifies the target resource — the 'http' scope is only implicit in the tool name — and it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like queue_add_retry_logic, retry_configure_backoff, and retry_generate_middleware, which all involve adding or configuring retry behavior.

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 provides zero guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives. Given that the sibling list contains several semantically close tools (queue_add_retry_logic, retry_configure_backoff, retry_add_circuit_breaker, http_add_caching), an agent cannot determine the selection criteria, the required context, or what system this operates on.

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