rerun_agent_run

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: resets to pending, re-enqueues, force-cancels running runs first, returns 422 for completed runs, and fails immediately if credit balance is insufficient. This is comprehensive and beyond the basic operation.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the primary action and target states, the second explains the effect, and the third covers error and prerequisite conditions. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, error cases, and prerequisites, making it quite complete for a one-parameter tool. It does not explicitly describe the success return value, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need; the effect is clearly described via 'resets to pending and re-enqueues 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%, with the single 'id' parameter already described as 'Run UUID'. The description does not add further semantics for this parameter, matching the baseline score of 3. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 action (rerun) and the target resource (failed, waiting, or stuck Rolli Agent run). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_agent_run and start_agent_run by specifying the applicable run states and the reset/re-enqueue behavior.

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 explicitly states when the tool is applicable (failed, waiting, or stuck runs) and when it should not be used (completed runs, returns 422). It also mentions prerequisite credit requirements. Although it does not name alternative sibling tools, the clear when-not conditions provide sufficient guidance.

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