undo_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses read-only intent, ordering, measured truncation via an extra row fetch, and the meaning of effectVerified. This goes well beyond a simple 'list' statement and warns about probable vs confirmed changes.

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 a concise lead definition, an output contract, critical caveats, and an args section. Every sentence adds actionable information without redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description provides everything needed: return shape, truncation semantics, re-run guidance, per-entry verification meaning, and parameter behavior. This is unusually complete for a 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?

Despite zero schema-level property descriptions, the description fully documents both parameters: limit has a default and cap, and target is explicitly marked as unused. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 '[READ] List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first)', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling undo_apply, which is the corresponding action 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?

It explicitly says to use the returned undoId with undo_apply, providing direct integration guidance. It also notes that target is unused, preventing wasted parameter use, though it does not enumerate alternative read tools.

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