Rerun Failed Jobs Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only scope. It says nothing about required write permissions, what happens if there are no failed jobs, whether the run must be in a completed/failed state, or whether this is rate-limited. For a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint ('only the failed jobs') is stated immediately. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, with no annotations, the mutation semantics (permissions, preconditions, no-op behavior) remain undisclosed, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete for a write operation.

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 100%, including the owner default (GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG) and the repo/run_id definitions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats or constraints beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (re-run) and resource (failed jobs in a GitHub Actions workflow run) with a clear scope qualifier ('only the failed jobs'). This implicitly separates it from rerun_workflow_run_tool, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation relies on the agent noticing the overlap.

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 phrase 'only the failed jobs' implies the selection condition (use this when a run partially failed and you want to skip passing jobs), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing against rerun_workflow_run_tool / trigger_workflow_tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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