make_retry_execution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool re-runs a failed execution, implying mutation, but does not detail side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or failure modes. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about behavior beyond the basic action.

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: two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information (verb + resource) and then emphasizes the re-run nature. Every sentence is essential.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and the description explains the source of the id, it covers the basics. However, it lacks information about expected output, error handling, or success/failure indicators, which would be helpful for a tool that re-runs executions. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% (the only parameter, dlq_id, is described as 'The incomplete-execution (DLQ) id from make_list_incomplete'). The description adds context that the id is from make_list_incomplete, but this is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description provides minimal additional meaning 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 uses a specific verb 'Retry' and clearly identifies the resource as 'incomplete/failed execution (DLQ item)'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing make_list_incomplete as the source of the id, and explicitly states 'This RE-RUNS the failed execution', leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies that the id must come from make_list_incomplete, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., make_run_scenario), nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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