raw_undo_history

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

Without annotations, the description takes on the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state' despite its name, which is transparent about potential side effects. However, it does not detail the specific behavior or outcomes beyond this warning.

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 brief, comprising two sentences. The first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides a necessary behavioral warning. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy.

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 covers the primary action and includes a critical caveat about potential state changes, which is essential for an agent making a decision. While it does not specify return values or further details, the tool has no output schema and its behavior is sufficiently outlined for a command-like action.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly indicates that it is 'no-argument'. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description fully aligns with the schema and adds no extraneous or conflicting 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 with a specific verb ('Display') and identifies the resource ('undo history'). It also clarifies that it is a static, no-argument action, which distinguishes it from other commands that take parameters.

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 a caution about potential side effects but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks a clear 'when to use' statement or comparison with related commands that might serve a similar purpose.

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