testneo_rerun_failed

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

The description labels the action as 'guarded write', hinting at potential guardrails (e.g., the confirm parameter). However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose details like idempotency, rate limits, or side effects on test results, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentence with a clear verb and resource, front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Could potentially be split into two sentences for better readability, but overall effectively concise.

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 and five parameters with no descriptions, the description fails to explain expected return values or the rerun outcome (e.g., execution IDs, success status). It is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 0% schema description coverage and no mention of parameters in the description (except indirectly implying project_id via 'for a project'), the description adds minimal value. Parameters like limit, confirm, range, and idempotency_key remain unexplained, forcing the agent to rely solely on schema constraints.

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 reruns failed tests for a project, specifying the verb 'rerun' and resource 'failed tests for a project'. It also notes the underlying endpoint and that it's a 'guarded write action', which distinguishes it from read-only or non-write sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other execution-related siblings (e.g., testneo_run_generated_test_pipeline). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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