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. It does not disclose whether this mutates project state irreversibly, whether it replays one step or a full stack, or what happens when there is nothing to redo (error vs. no-op) — all material for a state-changing history 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 six-word sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the scope. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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 0-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers the core action, but with no annotations and no return schema it leaves the failure mode and the extent of the redo (single step vs. multiple) unexplained. Minimum viable, with a clear gap around 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.

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 (redo) and the exact object affected (the last undone step), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling 'undo'. It does not explicitly reference the sibling set, but the verb alone makes the distinction obvious.

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 last undone step' implies the precondition that an undo must have occurred first, but this is left implicit. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus 'undo' or 'get_history', and no mention of what to do when the redo stack is empty.

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