undo_list

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

The description starts with '[READ]', indicating it is a non-destructive read operation. It discloses that the target parameter is unused, which is a behavioral detail beyond the schema. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers basic behavioral traits, though it omits potential side effects or limitations.

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 very concise: it front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then describes the output format, and finally explains the parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers the key aspects of the tool: it lists not-yet-applied tokens, orders them most recent first, and includes the necessary fields (original tool, inverse tool, human note, and undoId). It mentions the use of undoId with undo_apply. Without an output schema, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool, though it could briefly mention the return format or pagination.

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 description explains both parameters beyond the schema: limit as 'Max rows to return (default 50)' and target as 'Unused (undo state is host-local); accepted for CLI uniformity.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds critical meaning, especially clarifying that target is effectively ignored.

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 states clearly that the tool lists not-yet-applied undo tokens in reverse chronological order. It specifies that each entry includes the original tool, inverse tool, and human note. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool undo_apply, which applies an undo token.

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 explains that the undoId returned should be used with undo_apply, providing clear context for when to use this tool (before applying an undo). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the usage context is well-defined.

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