Re-run a terminal (SUCCEEDED or FAILED) execution as a brand-new execution: same target, byte-exact original payload, same sealed credentials, fresh attempt counter. This is the outage-recovery path — failed calls can be re-executed without regenerating the payload. Each call creates a new execution (deliberately not idempotent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes | the execution ID (exe_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: non-idempotent (creates new execution), same target/payload/credentials, fresh attempt counter. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but provides sufficient transparency for a simple 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?
Two sentences: first explains core functionality, second adds use case and key behavioral trait (non-idempotent). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description covers purpose and usage but does not explain return values or potential errors. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.
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 a single parameter described. The description adds context by linking the execution_id to the 're-run' action and mentioning the execution type, adding value 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 clearly states the tool re-runs a terminal execution as a brand-new execution with same target, payload, and credentials, and a fresh attempt counter. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the outage-recovery path, differentiating from siblings like 'execute' or 'get_execution'.
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 specifies that it is for outage recovery and that failed calls can be re-executed without regenerating the payload. It implies when to use, but does not provide explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution). Naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools cover the core functionality of an execution management server: initiating, checking, listing, replaying executions, plus managing connections and usage. This is well-scoped, not too few nor too many.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for asynchronous API execution: create (execute), check status (get_execution), list (list_executions), replay (replay_execution), manage credentials (list_connections), and monitor usage (get_usage). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.