photoshop_redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and shortcut; it does not disclose what happens when there is no redo history or when 'steps' exceeds available history, nor whether the operation silently no-ops or errors. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

A single sentence expresses the core purpose in under 15 words and the keyboard-equivalent hint is useful. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool is simple with only optional parameters and no output schema, so the description need not be long. However, given the lack of annotations, it would be stronger if it mentioned the no-op/error behavior when redo history is empty or if it explicitly constrained the operation to the active document. The provided schema partially compensates by describing document_id, but the main behavioral edge cases are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema: 'steps' documents count/default/min and 'document_id' explains activation and retargeting protection. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Redo') and a clear resource ('previously undone operation(s)') and gives the keyboard shortcut, making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is also implicitly distinct from its sibling photoshop_undo, since redo is 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 phrase 'previously undone operation(s)' implies the tool should be used after an undo has occurred, but it never explicitly states this precondition or names the alternative (photoshop_undo) for when no redo is intended. The usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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