retry_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does it create a new log entry?), idempotency, required permissions, or error handling. The description 'Retry a failed monitor trigger by log ID' is insufficient.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately.

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?

Despite low complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value, side effects, prerequisites, or relationship to other monitor operations. Important context is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what is already in the schema. It mentions 'by log ID' but that's already the parameter 'monitor_log_id' description. No extra semantics.

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 'retry' and identifies the resource as 'failed monitor trigger by log ID', clearly stating the action. However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'test_run_monitor' or 'lookup_monitor_log', as it lacks context on what 'trigger' means specifically.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions (e.g., only for failed logs), or when not to use it. The description is purely operational.

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