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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that only failed jobs are rerun, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., new job attempts), required permissions, rate limits, or any operational caveats. This is a re-run/mutation action that deserves more transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the core behavior immediately and avoids any unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with full parameter coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks any mention of when to prefer this over the sibling rerun_workflow_run_tool, and with no annotations, it does not provide the operational safety or permission context expected of a mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (repo, owner, run_id) are already thoroughly documented. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema fully compensates; baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('re-run'), resource ('failed jobs in a GitHub Actions workflow run'), and inherently distinguishes from the sibling rerun_workflow_run_tool by limiting scope to failed jobs. An agent can easily understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 implies the usage context—when you want to rerun only failed jobs—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or criteria for choosing this tool over rerun_workflow_run_tool. The guidance is present but implicit.

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