get_undo_redo_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (canUndo, canRedo, currentSequence, etc.) which conveys the read-only nature and result shape, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the status is per-project-scoped at the session level.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clean bulleted return-field list and a closing usage note. The field enumeration is slightly verbose but each item is informative, so no sentence is genuinely wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields an agent needs, and the single param is covered by the schema. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around error/empty-history behavior.

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 100% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get the current undo/redo status for a project') and enumerates the returned fields, making the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like undo/redo/get_operation_history, but the read-only status framing implicitly separates it from the mutation siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('determine if undo/redo buttons should be enabled and to show tooltips'), which is more than implied usage. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never names the alternative tools (undo, redo, get_operation_history), so an agent must infer the boundary with siblings.

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