vc_retry_storm_guard

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

The description declares the tool is 'Advisory only' and states it returns a 'JSON risk assessment, or payment_required', which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It also mentions authentication requirements.

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 very concise with five sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, detection details, sibling reference, auth, and output type. No redundancy.

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 tool has three parameters, clear schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, auth, and output type. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use 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?

Although the description does not detail each parameter, the input schema has 100% description coverage, so it already explains the parameters. The description adds value by explaining what the tool detects (synchronized backoff, etc.), which relates to the 'retry_config' parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Detect' with the resource 'retry configs', and clearly states what it flags (synchronized backoff, missing jitter, runaway fanout). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'vc_idempotency_guard' by noting the different focus.

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 advises using this tool 'before you enable aggressive retries on paid or rate-limited APIs', providing clear usage context. It also mentions a sibling for a different purpose. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the context is sufficient.

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