retry-failed-component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic resumption using existing session data and placeholder values but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., component must be in failed state), side effects, or error scenarios.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral detail, and the third provides contextual value. Properly front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description should cover return values or completion status, which it does not. It also does not address what happens if the component is not in a failed state. While the context is adequate for basic understanding, it lacks completeness for a smooth agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds context about using existing session data but does not elaborate on parameter meaning or usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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 'restart execution' and the resource 'failed component'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it recovers from transient failures without restarting the entire workflow, contrasting with rerun-workflow which would restart everything.

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 use ('transient failures or errors') and implicitly when not to use (not for restarting entire workflow). However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases (e.g., components already running) or mention alternative tools like terminate-component.

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