rhino_redo

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

The description correctly identifies the tool as performing a redo operation, which implies document modification. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if there are no undone operations) or that it can redo multiple steps. Given no annotations to rely on, the description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is effectively front-loaded.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a simple redo tool with a well-defined schema and output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning edge cases (e.g., behavior when fewer steps are available) or return value expectations.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0% per context, the schema itself contains a description for 'steps' ('Number of operations to redo'). The tool description does not add parameter information, but the schema already provides it, so the description adds no extra value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Redo') and the resource ('the last undone operation(s) in the Rhino document'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'rhino_undo' by focusing on the inverse operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rhino_undo'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having undone operations) or typical use cases.

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