rerun_failed

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 reveal a key trait—the tool is unavailable because signal-mcp is not configured—and suggests that calling it produces an explanation. But it doesn't describe actual behavior if the tool were available, what the call returns, or side effects.

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 one short sentence and front-loads the key unavailability message. However, it is under-specified as a tool definition; the brevity comes at the cost of conveying the tool's actual function, so it reads more like a status stub than a useful description.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the definition still fails to explain what rerun_failed does or how an agent should treat it when trying to rerun failed items. The description only signals unavailability, which is not enough context to support correct tool selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 is an availability notice rather than a functional definition. It does not state that rerun_failed reruns failed runs/checks or what its actual operation is; it only says it is unavailable and can be called to see why. This is not a tautology, but it leaves the tool's true purpose undefined.

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 gives minimal guidance: the tool is unavailable, and calling it reveals why. However, it provides no context about when to use rerun_failed versus sibling tools like run_checks, list_runs, or get_run_status, and it offers no alternatives or exclusions.

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