retry_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must describe behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions required, side effects (e.g., creating a new pipeline), or state constraints (job must be failed). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (3 words) with no wasted words. It could be slightly expanded to include context, but for minimalism it is effective.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens upon retry, whether it returns a new job, or any error states. The context signals show it is a simple tool, but the description still falls short.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little value. It does not clarify output or constraints on values beyond the schema.

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 'Retry a failed job' clearly identifies the action (retry) and the affected resource (a job that failed), distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_job or retry_pipeline. However, it could be more specific about the type of job (e.g., CI job).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like retry_pipeline (which retries all jobs in a pipeline). The description implies it is only for failed jobs, but does not state prerequisites or when not to use.

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