reprocess_failed_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the state scope (failed, pending, interrupted) and the non-rescanning behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it re-queues documents, or what the return value looks like. The output schema exists but its content isn't shown, so the description could add more behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds a clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly defines the scope of documents affected and the non-behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about what happens after retry (e.g., whether it's synchronous, whether it returns a summary), but the output schema likely covers that.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool operates on (documents in specific states) and what it avoids (rescanning). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides sufficient context.

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 purpose: retry documents in failed, pending, or interrupted states. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scanning for new files, which differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_documents.

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 when to use this tool: when documents are in failed, pending, or interrupted states and need retrying. It also explicitly states what it does NOT do (rescanning the input directory), which helps rule out alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria beyond the rescanning note.

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