rerun-workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'rerunning from an existing session' but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new workflow run, modifies the session, or requires specific permissions). The schema hints at placeholder reuse, but this is not in the main description.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, the phrase 'A command for' is slightly unnecessary; 'Reruns a workflow from an existing session' would be more direct. Still, it is concise overall.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship between session and workflow, what 'rerun' entails, or how placeholders are reused. The schema fills some gaps, but the main description lacks essential context for effective tool selection.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already includes detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters, including example values and valid options. The description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'rerunning' and the resource 'workflow', and specifies the context 'from an existing session'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'run-workflow' (running a new workflow) and 'retry-failed-component' (retrying a single component).

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 the tool should be used when a workflow needs to be rerun from an existing session, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'run-workflow' or 'retry-failed-component', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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