Retry pending durable records to recover from transient failures, then report whether each succeeded or moved to dead-letter state for reliable agent memory.
Retry durable pending records and report succeeded or dead-letter states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly discloses that the tool retries pending records and reports succeeded or dead-letter states, but it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or failure behavior beyond the state outcomes.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. The verb-action and outcome are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does and what it reports. It could add more surrounding pipeline context or invocation timing, but nothing essential appears 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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') with a clear resource ('durable pending records') and outcome ('report succeeded or dead-letter states'), so an agent can infer the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the action is distinct from recall, ingest, turn-prepare, turn-commit, get-job, and wait-job.
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 intended usage is implied: call this when durable pending records need retrying. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.