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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the 50-item cap and explicitly clarifying that no state is mutated or restored, which is the key behavioral question for a history tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core read operation front-loaded and the safety clarification immediately after. Nothing wastes space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still leaves the workspaceId parameter unexplained and offers no pagination or ordering context, but it is otherwise adequate for a simple read-only list 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only projectId carries a terse 'UUID string.' note; limit and workspaceId rely on type/bounds alone). The description partially compensates by explaining that limit reads 'up to 50 saved edit actions', giving the bound meaning, but it says nothing about workspaceId scoping or default behavior.

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 ('Read ... saved edit actions, their labels and undo state') and the phrase 'Does not restore or change the project' implicitly distinguishes it from write siblings like editor_edit_undo. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiability.

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 negative clause ('Does not restore or change the project') implies this is the inspection counterpart to undo/restore operations, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named.

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