retry_on_error

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It mentions recording attempts and providing retry escalation guidance, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., idempotency, retry limits) or authorization 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 concise, front-loading the purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value, and the argument list is clearly presented.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. With an output schema existing, the return value is handled externally. Minor gaps exist in behavioral details (e.g., retry count limits), but overall sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes 'Args' with explanations for both parameters (chunk_id and error_message), adding meaning beyond the schema. It could be improved with examples or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: record a failed attempt and get retry guidance. It specifies the triggering condition (model call failure, e.g., 500 error) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_chunk or get_stats.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Call this when a model call fails'). However, it does not mention when not to use or provide explicit alternatives among siblings, which are not error-related except this tool.

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