Self-Healing Function Call

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions retry and circuit breaker but lacks details on number of retries, backoff strategy, circuit breaker thresholds, or return behavior. This leaves gaps for an agent to predict exact behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage without waste. Each sentence adds value.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, retry count, circuit breaker details, or what happens on success/failure. More detail is needed for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description only adds general context ('pass a target name') without explaining parameter meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't compensate for the lack of detail in the schema descriptions.

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 tool's core function: wrapping a call with retry, circuit breaker, and metrics. It distinguishes from siblings like circuit_reset and metrics by showing this tool actually executes the unreliable call.

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 explicitly advises to 'use this to wrap any unreliable external call,' giving clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would provide stronger guidance.

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