retry_fallback

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that the task must be failed and read-only, and that fallback is not automatic—this is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides an important behavioral caveat. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and prerequisites, but it omits any indication of the return value or post-condition. The agent knows what it does and when to use it, but not what to expect after 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates somewhat by specifying that the task must be 'failed' and 'read-only', which gives semantic meaning to the task_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly map task_id to this description, so the connection is implied rather than direct.

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 with a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('a failed read-only task onto its configured fallback gateway'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_task or escalate_task by focusing on the fallback clone mechanism.

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 'Never falls back automatically' provides context that this is a manual fallback action, which helps the agent know when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it's clear context without exhaustive guidance.

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