RerunTaskInstances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '重跑任务实例' implies a mutation (rerunning tasks), but it doesn't describe what 'rerun' entails—whether it restarts failed instances, resets state, requires specific permissions, has side effects on dependencies, or affects workflow execution. The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic action, leaving critical operational traits unspecified.

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—a single phrase in Chinese—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness borders on under-specification, as it omits useful context that could aid understanding, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite efficient structure.

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 (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'rerun' means operationally, what states task instances must be in, how dependencies are handled, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral hints, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'Ids' (task instance ID list) and 'Comment' (remark information). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining ID formats, comment purposes, or usage constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing description supplementation.

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 '重跑任务实例' (Rerun task instances) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'RerunTaskInstances' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'rerun' entails operationally, what types of task instances are affected, or how this differs from similar tools like 'ResumeTaskInstances' or 'SetSuccessTaskInstances' in the sibling list. While it indicates the action and target, it lacks specificity about the operation's scope or mechanism.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task instances must be in a failed or stopped state), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ResumeTaskInstances', 'StopTaskInstances', or 'UpdateTaskInstances'. Without such context, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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