undo_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, explains the 'truncated' flag is measured via an extra row, and details the 'effectVerified' field, including the caution not to report unverified restores. This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense but every sentence provides valuable information: entry contents, usage, truncation semantics, effectVerified nuance, and parameter details. The structure with an 'Args' section keeps it organized with no fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers return field semantics (entry fields, undoId, effectVerified), truncation behavior, and usage. It also warns about probabilistic reversals. This is complete for a list tool of this complexity.

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 explain both parameters. It does so: 'limit' as max rows with default 50, and 'target' as unused but accepted for CLI uniformity. This fully compensates for the missing 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 '[READ] List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first)', which clearly states the verb ('list'), the resource ('recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens'), and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'undo_apply' by directly mentioning that the returned undoId is used with undo_apply.

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 instructs to use 'undoId' with 'undo_apply' and explains the 'target' parameter is unused for CLI uniformity. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a list operation.

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