rerun_failed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say whether this creates a new run or mutates the old one, what happens if there are no failures, whether the runId must reference a completed run, or what permissions are needed. For an execution tool that kicks off work, that is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is stated before any elaboration. Nothing here is wasted.

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 tool that re-executes tests with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits the return shape, run-creation semantics, and failure/no-failure behavior. An agent knows the intent but not the mechanics or consequences of calling it.

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 both runId and timeout are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or timeout-unit guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-execute ... tests') plus a scoping qualifier ('only the tests that failed in a previous run'), which cleanly separates it from run_tests and run_affected. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 phrase 'in a previous run' implies the trigger condition (a prior run that had failures), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_failures or run_tests for the non-failed case.

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