flush_event_outbox

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the retry-after-failure context but does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if there are no pending events, whether it can fail again, or what side effects occur (e.g., re-emitting events). This is a significant gap for a retry operation.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified; the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded with the key action but lacks the necessary detail to be genuinely useful.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (not shown here), the description does not explain what the retry does in practice, what the response indicates, or how failures are handled. For a tool that involves retrying after a failure, the agent needs more context about retry semantics, potential partial success, or error conditions. The description is too sparse to be complete.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. The description does not mention 'plan_id' at all, and the schema only provides a default value. The agent has no idea what this parameter controls or how to use it functionally, making the description completely unhelpful for parameter understanding.

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 (retry), the resource (pending Plan-generated Events), and the condition (after a previous Event write failure). It distinguishes itself from siblings like emit_event by focusing on retrying pending events rather than creating them. However, 'flush' is slightly ambiguous and could be interpreted as clearing rather than retrying, though 'retry' clarifies intent.

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. The description implies a retry scenario but does not explicitly state when an agent should call this over emit_event or read_event, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., 'use only after a failed write to the event outbox').

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