undo_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility and reveals key behaviors: it is a read ([READ]), uses a truncated detection mechanism (one extra row), explains the effectVerified flag meaning, and notes that the target parameter is unused. This goes beyond simple listing.

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 header, entry details, and an args section. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the explanation of effectVerified could be slightly condensed.

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 two parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, usage, and behavioral traits. It mentions the fields in each entry (undoId, original tool, etc.), making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: limit with default and cap (50–500), and target as unused for CLI uniformity. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing undo tokens that are recorded but not yet applied, in order (most recent first). It specifies it is a read operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 tells users to use the returned undoId with undo_apply and explains the effectVerified flag for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or provide comparisons to other list tools.

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