rerun_failed_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Re-run') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens to successful jobs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and scope clearly.

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 that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Re-run') with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral transparency, the description is insufficient. It does not cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, run_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how to identify a 'workflow run' or the format of 'run_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Re-run') and the target ('only the failed jobs from a workflow run'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'rerun_workflow' (which likely re-runs all jobs) and 'cancel_run' (which stops execution). It uses precise terminology that aligns with the tool's name.

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 usage when there are failed jobs in a workflow run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rerun_workflow' or 'trigger_workflow'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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