retry_add_circuit_breaker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to meet it. The one-liner gives no indication of what the tool actually does at runtime: whether it mutates existing configuration, generates new code, overwrites prior retry/circuit-breaker settings, or requires authentication (despite the api_key parameter). The '(Pro)' tier hint is present but unexplained.

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 9-word sentence with the key verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place: the action, the two combined resources, the intended outcome, and the tier marker. There is no filler, repetition, or structural waste.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain what the tool produces (generated code, config file, middleware), how it interacts with existing retry or circuit-breaker setups, what the defaults imply, or why the agent would reach for this tool among the many resilience-related siblings. The schema documents parameters but not the tool's place in a workflow.

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%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description loosely contextualizes parameters by mentioning 'retry policies' and 'circuit breaker', which maps conceptually to failure_threshold and reset_timeout_ms, but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 specific verb ('Combine') with two clear resources (retry policies, circuit breaker) and a purpose ('resilient communication'). This is more informative than the tool name alone and communicates the tool's distinct value as a combination tool rather than a single-pattern configurator. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like retry_configure_backoff, cb_configure_thresholds, or http_add_retry.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives such as retry_configure_backoff, cb_add_fallbacks, or http_add_retry, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. An agent facing the large sibling list has no basis for routing between overlapping resilience-pattern tools.

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