tarn_rerun_failed

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the scope (failing pairs only) and response shape match, but does not disclose safety characteristics, error states (e.g., no failures), or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 states purpose, second explains response shape and workflow benefit. No extraneous words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core function, response shape alignment with tarn_run, and the agent loop. Lacks handling of edge cases like no failures, but the parameter descriptions cover run_id defaults. Sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, such as usage examples or constraints.

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 it reruns only failing (file, test) pairs from a prior run, and mentions the response shape matches tarn_run, distinguishing it from tarn_run (full run) and tarn_run_agent.

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 provides clear context: use this after a prior run to rerun failures, enabling a loop of run, inspect, rerun. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the intended use case is evident.

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