prufa_rerun_gremlin

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: it returns a new run_id, blocks or returns queued state based on wait, and mentions idempotency_key for safe retries. It does not cover potential errors or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then details on wait and idempotency. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('new run_id' and 'report' for wait=true). All essential parameters are covered, and the [Pro] tier hint is included.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the wait parameter behavior in detail, while the schema only provides defaults. The schema covers 67% of parameters, and the description compensates for the missing wait description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-dispatch a past gremlin run') and resource ('gremlin run') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_run_gremlin (which creates new runs) and prufa_get_run (which fetches existing ones).

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 states when to use ('re-dispatch a past gremlin run with the SAME intent') and explains the wait behavior, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives like prufa_run_gremlin for different parameters.

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