skill_task_retrigger

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 not state side effects (e.g., does it create a new run?), access requirements, or state transitions. The alias reference is helpful but insufficient for transparency.

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 short (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and includes an alias note. No redundancy; every word 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?

The tool has only one parameter and a simple purpose, but the description lacks return behavior (e.g., status confirmation), state implications, and error handling notes. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context for safe 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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (schedule_id) with a description. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 action ('Re-trigger') and the resource ('failed or completed scheduled task'). The alias note distinguishes it from siblings like skill_schedule_cancel, skill_schedule, and skill_schedule_list, though skill_schedule_retrigger is explicitly a sibling, which dilutes but does not negate the clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., skill_schedule_retrigger or skill_schedule_cancel). There is no mention of prerequisites such as schedule existence or state eligibility beyond 'failed or completed'.

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