rerun_workflow_run_failed_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, or how the workflow run status changes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the docs link is not directly actionable for an agent and adds little value, slightly reducing the conciseness score.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description. It does not explain the outcome of the re-run, return values, or any prerequisites. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking this 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 (owner, repo, run_id), providing baseline coverage. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The 'enable_debug_logging' parameter lacks a description in both schema and tool description, but the bar for a moderate-coverage schema is met.

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-run') and identifies the resource ('failed jobs in a workflow run'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'rerun_workflow_run' by specifying 'only the failed jobs', making the purpose immediately clear.

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 clearly implies the tool is for re-running only failed jobs, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'rerun_workflow_run' for re-running all jobs.

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