make_retry_execution

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 notes the re-run action (mutating), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether the DLQ item is consumed. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences without wasted words. Front-loaded with action and source of ID, followed by a clarifying statement. Highly efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its input, and its relation to make_list_incomplete. No gaps given the complexity.

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?

Only one parameter, dlq_id, with 100% schema coverage. The description mentions the ID source from make_list_incomplete, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'retry' and the resource 'incomplete/failed execution (DLQ item)', specifying the ID source from make_list_incomplete. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like make_get_execution or make_run_scenario.

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 usage when you have a DLQ item from make_list_incomplete that needs retrying. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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