attempt_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format but omits side effects, prerequisites beyond role, or behavior under failure. Additionally, it contradicts the schema by marking 'caller_agent_id' as required when it is optional.

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 very concise, using a few sentences to convey purpose, usage restriction, arguments, and return format. It is well-structured but could benefit from more detail without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (recovery operation) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what recovery entails, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on success/failure beyond returning a message. An output schema exists but is not detailed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for both parameters, but the claim that 'caller_agent_id' is required is misleading and contradicts the schema, reducing reliability.

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 tool attempts to recover an agent, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'full_recovery' in name, but does not explicitly differentiate its scope or behavior.

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 specifies that only Owner and Admin can use the tool, providing some usage context. However, it does not indicate when this tool is preferable over alternatives like 'full_recovery' or 'monitor_and_recover_workers'.

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