retry_pipeline_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retry all failed jobs' is a mutation operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, preconditions (e.g., required permissions), what happens to non-failed jobs, or whether a new pipeline is created. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word adds value: it names the verb, the target (failed jobs), and the scope (CI/CD pipeline).

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 a simple 2-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutating operation with no annotations or usage guidance, it lacks behavioral context and alternative differentiation. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters (`project_id` and `pipeline_id`) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description merely restates the action, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 a specific resource ('all failed jobs in a CI/CD pipeline'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `retry_job_tool`, which retries a single job rather than all failed jobs in a pipeline.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as `retry_job_tool`, `cancel_pipeline_tool`, or `create_pipeline_tool`. There is no explicit context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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