redo

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

No annotations are supplied, so some burden shifts to the description. It discloses the mutation ('redoes ... editing operation') and that it acts on the redo stack of the active sprite, but does not say what happens when the redo stack is empty, whether the action is reversible, or which sprite state is affected — modest disclosure 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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and immediately qualifying which operation is redone. Every word earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema, single-action tool the description is nearly complete, but with no annotations and no return contract it leaves unstated the edge behavior (empty redo stack) and any restriction on the target sprite. Those gaps are minor for such a simple tool, keeping it just short of full completeness.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter noise because there is nothing to parameterize. No further semantic gain is possible or needed here.

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 (redoes) and its precise object (the most recently undone editing operation on the active sprite). It sits clearly opposite the sibling 'undo' and cannot be confused with any other tool — the operation, target, and locus (active sprite) are all pinned down.

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 the when: redo applies only after an undo has occurred, and scope is limited to the active sprite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state the precondition (e.g., that a redo stack must be non-empty), so it stops short of an explicit when/when-not pairing.

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