undo_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally well: discloses the read-only nature, most-recent-first ordering, exact return shape, truncation behavior (with the extra-row fetch making truncation measured), the effectVerified caveat and its implications, and the host-local nature of undo state.

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 detailed yet well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, return values, truncation semantics, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds practical value, and the most important information is front-loaded, making it efficient despite its length.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies the return format, pagination semantics, and the crucial effectVerified caveat. It also contextualizes the tool within the undo workflow by referencing undo_apply. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete and self-contained.

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 schema has no descriptions and 0% coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains limit's default and hard cap, and explicitly states that target is unused and accepted only for CLI uniformity, which prevents an agent from misusing the parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first).' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by focusing on undo tokens and directly mentions the companion tool undo_apply, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: it says to use the returned undoId with undo_apply, emphasizes that only not-yet-applied tokens are shown, and notes that target is unused and accepted only for CLI uniformity. While it doesn't explicitly enumerate alternative tools or when not to use this one, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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