retry_job_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new pipeline or updates the job), requirements (e.g., authentication, project permissions), or failure conditions. The single sentence leaves significant uncertainty about what actually happens when invoked.

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 is front-loaded with the action verb. There is zero verbosity or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and easy to scan for an agent.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as prerequisites (job must be in a failed state, which is implied but not explicit) or post-conditions (e.g., whether a new job is spawned). It does not cover all scenarios that an agent might need to decide invocation.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions ('Job ID' and 'Project ID or path'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—for instance, it does not clarify the format of project_id (path vs. numeric) or any constraints on job_id. Thus, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Retry a specific failed CI/CD job.' It uses a specific verb 'Retry' with a well-defined object ('specific failed CI/CD job'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_pipeline_tool (which retries entire pipelines) and cancel_job_tool/delete_job_tool (which affect jobs differently). The inclusion of 'failed' narrows the scope precisely.

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 usage by stating the action on a specific failed job, but does not explicitly differentiate it from retry_pipeline_tool or mention when not to use it (e.g., if the job is not failed). No alternatives are referenced, leaving the context to be inferred from the name and sibling list.

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