github_checks_rerequest_suite

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Rerequest', which implies a mutation, but does not explain what happens (e.g., triggers a new check suite run), side effects, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutating 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?

The description is extremely concise (4 words) but lacks necessary detail. While front-loaded, it sacrifices clarity and context, making it merely adequate.

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's complexity (mutation, no annotations, no output schema, relevant sibling tools), the description is too brief. An agent would need more context to use it correctly, such as what a check suite is and the effect of rerequesting.

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% but the descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'check_suite_id'), adding no extra meaning. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 'Rerequest a check suite' clearly states the action and resource, using a verb that is standard in the GitHub Checks API. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'github_checks_rerequest_run' which performs a similar action on a check run rather than a suite.

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 compared to alternatives like 'github_checks_rerequest_run' or 'github_checks_create_suite'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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