skill_schedule_retrigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'Resets retry count and re-enables', which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what happens if the schedule is already running. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nesting), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral effects. Missing details like expected return value or error handling, but these are minor for a simple tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single parameter (schedule_id). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Re-trigger' and the specific resource 'failed or completed scheduled run'. It also adds 'Resets retry count and re-enables' which further clarifies the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_schedule_cancel and skill_task_retrigger by focusing on schedules and the condition of failure/completion.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: for a 'failed or completed scheduled run'. This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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