project_undo_history

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Return'), but there are no annotations to confirm. No disclosure of side effects, permissions required, or what happens if history is empty. For a simple retrieval tool, more context about the stack's structure or behavior would improve 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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core function. Perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details like the format of the returned stack (e.g., list of strings, objects) or what each entry represents. For a complete understanding, an agent might need more information about the return value.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information since none exist. The schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('undo history stack'). It is distinct from sibling tools like project_undo and project_redo, which perform actions rather than retrieve state. However, the description could be more precise about what is returned (e.g., list of steps, metadata).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that it is for inspection rather than modification, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. Sibling tools like project_undo and project_redo are for performing actions, but this distinction is not explicitly stated.

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