Retry post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (re-queueing failed schedules) and scopes it to failed schedules, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens when there are no failed schedules, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The key action ('re-queue') and subject ('failed schedules') are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is concise without being under-specified in terms of purpose.

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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool does but does not clarify what qualifies as a 'failed schedule,' any preconditions, or the outcome of the operation. The low parameter count reduces complexity, but the lack of parameter explanation and behavioral edge cases leave clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'postId' parameter at all. It only says 'a post's' without connecting that to the required parameter. The description provides zero additional meaning beyond the bare schema, so the agent receives no guidance on what postId should refer to or how it relates to the operation.

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 'Re-queue a post's failed schedules for another attempt' uses a specific verb ('re-queue'), names the exact resource ('a post's failed schedules'), and clarifies the purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'reschedule_post' by focusing specifically on failed schedules and retrying them, rather than rescheduling generally.

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 implies the use case: when a post has failed schedules that need another attempt. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'reschedule_post' or 'schedule_post', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied but not made explicit.

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