rerun_action_run_failed_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reruns only failed jobs and specifies preconditions. It also advises a best-practice workflow. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is idempotent or describe side effects like rate limits.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the action, second gives the efficiency rationale and precondition, third provides a safety workflow. No wasted words.

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, the description could explain the return value, but for a rerun operation the response is typically a status code, which is self-explanatory. The description provides sufficient operational context for correct usage, including prerequisites and verification steps.

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 mentions `runId` in context but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. No parameter-level descriptions are enhanced.

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 tool's specific purpose: 'Rerun ONLY the failed jobs of an Actions workflow run by `runId`.' It then explicitly distinguishes this from its sibling 'rerun_action_run' by highlighting efficiency when only a subset of jobs failed.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: when to use (efficient for failed-only reruns), preconditions (only valid on completed runs, requires Gitea 1.26.0+), and a recommended workflow (call get_action_run first, confirm runId with user). This helps an AI agent avoid errors.

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