github_rerun_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that re-running consumes GitHub Actions minutes, creates a new workflow run, or requires write permissions. It also implies a selection capability ('all jobs or only failed jobs') that is not reflected in the input schema, creating an unstated and potentially misleading behavioral trait.

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 and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by a neat Args block. Each sentence earns its place, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema's property titles. Overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, and the fact that a re-run creates a new run. It fails to do so, and the 'all jobs or only failed jobs' ambiguity further undermines completeness. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing operational context is a significant 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'Workflow run ID to re-run'), which adds slight value over the schema titles. However, it omits details about session_name's default/usage and does not clarify how the 'all jobs vs failed' behavior is controlled, leaving a semantic gap.

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 ('Re-run a workflow') and the target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'github_trigger_workflow' (which starts a new run) and 'github_cancel_workflow_run' (which cancels). However, the phrase 'all jobs or only failed jobs' introduces ambiguity about how the scope is selected, since no parameter exists for that choice.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the run existing or having failed. It also fails to note that re-running a successful run might be undesirable, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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