wafle_system_queue_retry

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that retries can be targeted by id or kind, which is useful, but does not disclose potential side effects like whether the job is removed from the failure queue or if there are rate limits. No contradiction with annotations; the baseline is met but no extra context beyond the annotations is provided.

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 captures both modes of operation without filler. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and object, making it immediately scannable.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main intent but omits critical details: what happens if neither parameter is set, whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, and what the response looks like. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 schema describes 'kind' but not 'job_id' (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that retrying 'by id' refers to job_id and 'all failed jobs of a kind' refers to kind. It also implies an either/or relationship. However, it does not explicitly state mutual exclusivity or behavior when neither is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Retry') and the resource ('failed queue job'), with specific modes: by id or all of a kind. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_system_queue_failed (listing) and wafle_system_queue_stats (statistics). The verb+object combination leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 use case is implied strongly: it is for retrying failed queue jobs. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is evident from the action itself. Given the early position in the description, an agent will know when to select this tool, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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