undo_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses the exact return shape, the measured (not guessed) truncation behavior, the semantics of 'effectVerified' and its implications for probable vs confirmed state, and the fact that 'target' is unused. This is thorough behavioral disclosure beyond what structured data could provide.

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 and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the purpose, then gives return format, behavioral nuances, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a complete picture: return object shape, pagination semantics, effectVerified caveats, and full parameter descriptions. It leaves no significant gaps for the agent to make correct decisions about selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so completely: 'limit' is described as max rows with default and cap, and 'target' is explicitly stated as unused/accepted for CLI uniformity. This compensates entirely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: '[READ] List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first).' It distinguishes this from the sibling 'undo_apply' by explicitly noting these are tokens to be used with undo_apply, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use the undoId with undo_apply' and advises re-running with a higher limit when truncated. It clearly establishes the context for listing pending undo tokens, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives; the context is strong enough to infer.

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