rerun_workflow_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic action but omits side effects such as creating a new workflow run, requiring write permissions, or potential rate limits. The description is too terse to provide meaningful 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 sentence with a docs link, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, and there is no waste.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, side effects, and when to use this over the sibling re-run tool. It lacks all of this, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 schema describes 3 of 4 parameters, leaving enable_debug_logging undocumented. The description adds no parameter information and does not compensate for that gap. Schema coverage is 75%, which is moderate, so the description is adequate but not helpful.

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 'Re-run a workflow run' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool rerun_workflow_run_failed_jobs, which also re-runs but only the failed jobs. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that rerun_workflow_run_failed_jobs is for failed jobs only, nor does it discuss prerequisites or conditions for re-running. The docs link provides reference material but not usage context.

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