github_rerun_workflow_run

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

No annotations provided, and the description only includes routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, read-only, or requires permissions, nor any rate limits 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 short but includes boilerplate routing information that may be redundant. It could be more concise by focusing on tool-specific details.

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, no annotations, and a single parameter with no description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to construct the arguments, or when to use this tool among many GitHub workflow tools.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify what fields are needed (e.g., run_id, repo).

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 states it is a GitHub connector operation 'rerun_workflow_run', which clearly indicates the tool reruns a workflow run. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_workflow_run', it does not elaborate on the specific meaning of rerun (e.g., retry failed run).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_dispatch_workflow' or 'github_trigger_workflow'. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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