github_actions_re_run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It simply states 'Re-run a workflow' without explaining consequences (e.g., whether it creates a new run attempt, affects logs, requires permissions, or has rate limits). The agent has zero insight into behavior beyond the action verb.

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 single-sentence description is concise but overly minimal. It front-loads the action but omits critical details. Each word should add value; here, the description is too sparse to be useful, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must compensate. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or the structure of the 'body' parameter. The tool is part of a large set of sibling actions, and the lack of context makes it difficult for an AI agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, but descriptions are just parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'run_id', 'body'). The description adds no additional meaning. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' but lacks specification of expected fields. Without elaboration, the agent must infer from context, risking incorrect usage.

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 'Re-run a workflow' identifies the action (re-run) and resource (workflow). However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 're_run_job_for_workflow_run' or 're_run_workflow_failed_jobs', which also involve re-running. The description does not specify the scope of the re-run (e.g., all jobs or just failed jobs), leading to potential 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., workflow run status) or conditions under which the tool should not be used. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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