redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that this mutates edit state by reapplying an undone edit. It omits edge behavior such as an empty redo stack, whether it is scoped to the active project, and whether the action is reversible (i.e., re-undoable).

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?

One short sentence, action first, with nothing extraneous. The bilingual duplication adds length without new information for an English-reading agent, though it serves localization.

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 trivial zero-parameter editor action with no output schema, the description says enough to invoke it correctly. What is missing is failure/edge semantics (empty stack, wrong project context), which an agent would need to handle errors sensibly.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

States a specific verb (redo) applied to a specific resource (the last undone edit), so an agent knows exactly what the call does without opening the empty schema. It does not differentiate against a potential undo counterpart, though no such sibling appears in the supplied list.

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 'last undone edit' implies the precondition that an undo has already occurred, which is a form of when-to-use guidance. It never states what happens if there is nothing to redo, or whether this applies only to the currently open project.

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