session_redo_step

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

With no annotations, the description supplies the core behavior: redo exactly N steps. However, it does not mention side effects, limits on N, failure behavior, or relationship to the redo history, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and action-first, with no filler. The 'granular' parenthetical is the only extra qualifier and could be more precise, but the length is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter operation the description is minimally adequate, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. It remains incomplete because it gives no usage context or behavioral caveats beyond the basic operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does: 'N steps' directly maps to the steps integer. It does not add detail about valid ranges or default behavior, but the schema supplies the default of 1.

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 a specific verb ('redo') and resource ('N steps'), so an agent knows the operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling session_redo, so it misses full sibling differentiation that would justify a 5.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of session_redo, session_undo, or session_undo_step. The parenthetical 'granular' hints at step-by-step behavior but does not state a selection rule or exclusion condition.

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