Retry failed tasks

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: tasks are put back 'with a fresh attempt budget' and can be filtered by type/jobId. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, with the core action and key qualifier front-loaded. The optional filter and usage context are stated without any redundancy or filler.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and gives a clear situational trigger. It does not detail defaults for the attempt budget or what happens to existing queue entries, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description only says the operation is 'optionally filtered by type / jobId'. This names both parameters and hints at their role, but does not explain the enum values or what jobId refers to, leaving the description to carry more weight than it actually does.

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 uses a specific verb ('Put failed tasks back into the queue') and a specific resource, clearly identifying the tool as a retry operation for failed tasks. It also distinguishes itself from queue_status/queue_start/queue_cancel by focusing on re-enqueueing failed tasks with a fresh attempt budget.

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 'Useful after fixing a login problem or when LinkedIn had a bad day' provides clear situational context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the highest tier.

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