retry_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It truthfully conveys that retrying applies only to failed or canceled pipelines, but it does not describe side effects such as creating a new pipeline run, re-triggering jobs, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action and the precondition without 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?

The description is sufficient for selecting the tool and understanding its basic purpose, but because there is no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without information about return values, retry behavior details, or authorization expectations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (project_id, pipeline_id) already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents them.

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 ('pipeline') and narrows scope to 'failed or canceled' pipelines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_pipeline_job, which target individual jobs rather than the whole pipeline.

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 clearly states the applicable condition: pipelines that are 'failed or canceled.' This gives the agent a practical trigger for use, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as preferring retry_pipeline_job for single-job retries.

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