rerun_failed_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the tool name. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, whether a new run is created, permissions required, or any destructive impact, which is critical for a tool that reruns jobs.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of necessary behavioral and usage 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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanation, the description is inadequate for understanding the full context of the operation. It does not explain what happens to the workflow, whether jobs are retried individually, or what the expected outcome is.

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%, and the description does not mention the run_id parameter at all. The parameter's purpose, format, and how to obtain it are left entirely to inference from its name.

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 uses a specific verb ('rerun') with a specific resource ('failed jobs') scoped to a workflow. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_workflow, get_workflow_status, and cancel_workflow.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when a rerun is appropriate, or when to prefer other workflow management tools.

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