rerun_workflow_run_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Re-run all jobs' implies a mutating operation that triggers a new workflow run, but the description does not state permissions required, state requirements for the run, or side effects (e.g., cost, new run creation). This is a minimal disclosure typical of a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. There is no extraneous information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. This is an efficient use of 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?

The description is minimal and lacks context about when to invoke this tool, its permissions, or the state of the workflow run required for a successful rerun. Although the output schema exists, the absence of annotations and usage guidance leaves the description thin for a mutating operation. Given the low complexity, it is borderline, but the missing operational context makes it incomplete.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, and the tool description does not add additional parameter guidance. The phrase 'all jobs' clarifies the effect on the run, but it does not explain how to format repo, owner, or run_id beyond what the schema already says. With 100% schema coverage, this is adequate but not 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 a specific action ('Re-run') on a specific resource ('GitHub Actions workflow run') and specifies scope ('all jobs'). This distinguishes it from the sibling rerun_failed_jobs_tool, which implies a narrower scope of only failed jobs. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 the distinction from rerun_failed_jobs_tool or any conditions under which one should be chosen over the other. An agent must infer usage from the sibling tool names, which is not provided by the description.

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