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 states the core behavior (redoing an undone action) but does not disclose potential failure conditions (e.g., no undo history, redo buffer cleared) or side effects beyond the literal action. It is not misleading or contradictory, but it provides minimal transparency about the operational context.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Although the tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, the description lacks important contextual details such as the requirement that an undo must have occurred, the behavior if called multiple times, or whether the redo buffer is cleared after a new action. These omissions mean the agent might call it in an invalid state. Given the low complexity, it is complete enough for basic use but not exhaustive.

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 no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters, the description need not add parameter explanations. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the action itself without parameter details.

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 'Redo last undone action' clearly states the verb (redo), the resource (last undone action), and implies the inverse relationship to its sibling 'undo'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool without needing additional context.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies redo is the opposite of undo, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must have just undid an action) or conditions for use. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so it only provides implicit context.

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