cypress_rerun_last

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool 'replays' the last invocation but does not disclose side effects, environment requirements, or behavior when no prior run exists. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes Cypress tests.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes. It is concise without sacrificing the core message.

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, no-input tool, the description adequately covers the main purpose and use case. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if there is no last run), but given the tool's simplicity and absent output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds meaning by explaining that no arguments need reconstruction ('no need to reconstruct arguments'), which justifies the empty schema. This is helpful and matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 'replays the exact last run_spec or run_test invocation,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings that start new runs or retrieve information.

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?

It provides clear usage context ('when iterating on the same failure') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The intent is clear, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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