session_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 states the action but does not explain what happens when there is nothing to redo, whether the redo mutates session state, or any other side effects or failure behavior.

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 sentence that immediately states the core action without wasted words. It is concise, though slightly under-specified in terms of prerequisites and failure modes.

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 state-changing command with no annotations, the description is thin. It does not address empty undo history behavior or distinguish itself from session_redo_step. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the usage context remains incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is no meaningful parameter information for the description to add.

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 ('Reapply') with a clear object ('the last undone operation'), so it states what the tool does and is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'session_redo_step', which appears to target a very similar 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like session_undo_step or session_redo_step, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., an undone operation must exist). The intended context is only implied by the phrase 'last undone operation.'

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