mission_retry_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by disclosing that a manual retry counts toward the attempt budget and that attempts + manual_retries >= max_attempts stops further automated retries. It does not cover other side effects like reversibility or permission requirements, but the budget impact is a meaningful disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and target, the second provides the key behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is adequately described for basic selection, and the budget side effect is a valuable addition. However, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no explicit routing against siblings like mission_run or mission_complete_feature, the description leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain mission_id, feature_id, or repo. The word 'feature' gives minimal context for feature_id, but mission_id and repo remain effectively undocumented beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('retry') and resource ('failed/blocked feature'), making the tool's core purpose unmistakable. The 'manual' qualifier and failed/blocked scope distinguish it from run/start tools and from automated 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 clearly states when to use the tool: for a failed or blocked feature. It also explains how manual retries interact with the automated retry budget, which implies when manual intervention is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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