undo_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read operation, returns a structured response with truncation details, and explains the 'effectVerified' field meaning. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with sections for summary, return format, and args. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose in the truncation explanation. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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, the description covers the return structure (undos, returned, limit, truncated) and important field 'effectVerified'. Parameters are fully described, and sibling tools provide related context.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: 'limit' with default/max and 'target' as unused for CLI uniformity. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 begins with '[READ] List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first)', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'undo_apply' by stating the list provides undoId for that tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use the undoId with undo_apply', guiding the agent to the next action. It also notes that the 'target' parameter is unused, preventing misuse. The context of listing pending tokens before applying an undo is clear.

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