Docflow Retry Review Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful behavior: 'All rules in the task will be re-evaluated.' However, it does not disclose whether the retry replaces prior results, requires an existing failed task, or has other side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and condition, followed by a concise statement of the retry scope. Every clause adds useful information without 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 low-complexity tool with two self-describing parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, trigger, and behavioral effect. It is mostly complete, though it could be stronger by explaining the workspace_id parameter and explicitly routing single-rule retries to retry_review_rule.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions workspace_id or task_id. The phrase 'entire review task' implies that task_id refers to a review task, but workspace_id is left entirely to inference, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Retry an entire review task' and adds the condition 'that failed or produced unexpected results.' The qualifier 'entire' and the note 'All rules in the task will be re-evaluated' clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like docflow_retry_review_rule and docflow_retry_files.

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 phrase 'failed or produced unexpected results' provides a clear trigger for when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as retrying a single rule instead of the whole task, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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