github_checks_rerequest_run

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

No annotations exist. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or impact on previous check results. It merely states the action without additional context.

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 concise but overly minimal. It front-loads the action but does not earn its place as it omits essential context. A single sentence is efficient but insufficient for a complete tool definition.

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 three required parameters, the description fails to explain return values, side effects, or typical use outcomes. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 schema descriptions are just parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'check_run_id'), adding no new meaning. The tool description does not compensate or clarify the parameter semantics 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 action ('Rerequest a check run') using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like github_checks_rerequest_suite, which applies to check suites. However, it could be more explicit about the scope.

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 other check-related tools (e.g., github_checks_create, github_checks_rerequest_suite). The description offers no context for selection.

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