redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'redo' and the shortcut, but does not explain what actions are reversible, whether it affects the current selection, or what happens when there is nothing to redo. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that reverses user actions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase with the keyboard shortcut. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it could add context about the scope of redo (e.g., only undoes the most recent undo, or whether it applies to all operations) and the relationship to the undo tool. The lack of such context makes it just adequate for an agent to understand the basic function, but not fully complete for edge cases.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. It correctly omits any parameter-related content, which is appropriate.

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 '重做（Ctrl+Shift+Z）' explicitly names the operation (redo) and provides the keyboard shortcut, making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from the sibling 'undo' tool because redo is the inverse operation, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast them, so it loses a point for not differentiating from the sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after an undo, nor does it explain conditions under which it might not apply (e.g., nothing to redo). The context of being paired with 'undo' is implied but not stated.

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