retry_pipeline_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the retry action but does not mention side effects such as creating a new job attempt, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the job is not in a retryable state.

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 concise sentence that states the action and the qualifying conditions with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse for an agent.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the schema and description provide enough to make a basic call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out behavioral and comparative context that would help an agent choose and invoke this tool reliably among many pipeline-related siblings.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how job_id or project_id should be formatted or used, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Retry') and resource ('failed or canceled pipeline job'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'retry_pipeline', though the qualifiers and resource noun do most of the disambiguation work.

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 tool should be used when a pipeline job is failed or canceled, which is a useful condition. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related siblings like retry_pipeline, play_pipeline_job, or cancel_pipeline_job.

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