aap_relaunch_job

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds some context by noting the return value includes a new job_id, implying a new job is created. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior for running jobs. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could still be more transparent about mutation consequences.

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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, and the format is easy to scan. No unnecessary text.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks details on error conditions or authentication, but these are not critical for a straightforward relaunch operation. The output schema existence also reduces the need to describe return structure in detail.

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 description's Args section repeats the schema descriptions for job_id and hosts, but adds a parenthetical '(retry only failed hosts)' for hosts, which clarifies the value 'failed'. The schema already had descriptions, so the description adds marginal value. Baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 verb 'Relaunch' with the resource 'completed or failed AAP job', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_launch_job_template (which launches new jobs from templates) and aap_cancel_job. The condition 'completed or failed' adds precision.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for completed or failed jobs. It implicitly excludes running jobs, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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