redo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without covering edge cases like what happens if there are not enough undone actions, whether the count must be positive, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It lacks details about failure modes, behavior when count is zero or negative, and interaction with undo history. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations, it could be more complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'count' with default 1, and schema description coverage is 0% (the description doesn't explain the parameter). The description mentions 'count' in context, but it adds minimal meaning beyond what the property name implies. It does not clarify valid ranges or forms, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 function: 'Redo the last `count` undone actions.' It uses a specific verb ('redo') and a clear resource ('undone actions'). It naturally distinguishes from the sibling 'undo' tool as the inverse operation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (it's the counterpart to undo) but does not explicitly state when to use it or any prerequisites. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The relationship to 'undo' is obvious but not stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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