get_undo_redo_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the response concerns available steps and transaction names, which is modest extra context beyond what the output schema likely already conveys.

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 with no filler, and the key noun phrase (undo/redo steps, transaction names) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why guidance is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the meaning of doc_name and any hint about when to call this versus undo/redo, leaving the definition just barely adequate for a one-parameter status tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter doc_name is never mentioned in the description. It is unclear whether an empty doc_name means the active document, what form the name takes, or whether omitting it is safe for a multi-document session, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"Check available undo/redo steps and transaction names" gives a specific verb (Check) and a specific resource (undo/redo steps, transaction names), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings undo and redo. It stops short of explicitly stating that it only inspects state without performing undo/redo, but the verb choice makes that reasonably clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural pairing with undo/redo (e.g. call this first to see whether there is anything to undo), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the relationship to the sibling undo/redo tools entirely on its own.

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