get_undo_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ('object with undo and redo descriptions'), which is useful transparency about what the caller receives, but it says nothing about whether the tool mutates state, requires a loaded project, or how it behaves at the ends of the undo history.

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?

Two short lines, purpose front-loaded, and the return-shape note earns its place because no output schema exists. The formatting is slightly awkward with the dangling 'Returns:' block, but there is no wasted prose.

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 zero-parameter read getter with no annotations, the description covers what it does and roughly what it returns, which is close to enough. The only real gap is the absence of context about when the state is meaningful (e.g., project must be open).

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, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current undo/redo state'), which is unambiguous on its own. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings undo and redo, but never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the sibling undo/redo tools. Usage is only implied by the name and the read-only verb - an agent can reasonably infer 'call this to inspect state before deciding to undo', but the description does not say so.

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