undo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it undoes the last action, but does not disclose whether undo is destructive, how it handles multiple undos, or what constitutes an 'action' in this context. This is minimal and insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 at four words, which is efficient for a zero-parameter operation. However, it may be under-specified, lacking any contextual detail, but it is not verbose or wasteful. It earns a high score for conciseness, though slightly reduced because it could be more informative without becoming lengthy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the undo (e.g., which commands are undoable), whether there is an undo stack depth, or any limitations. The agent is left without enough context to know when and how to use it effectively, especially given the large sibling set.

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 and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no additional semantics needed beyond the schema.

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 'Undo last action' provides a clear verb and resource, and it is easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'redo' or clarify which actions are considered 'undoable', though the overall purpose is evident.

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 like 'redo' or other action-management commands. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.

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