fcp_redo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('redo') but does not clarify if it is safe, reversible, or has side effects. For a simple redo, this is adequate but not thorough; an agent might benefit from knowing if it can be performed multiple times or only once.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core action without any superfluous words. Every word is necessary, and the structure is well front-loaded.

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 no parameters and only a simple action, the description fully explains what the tool does. An output schema exists (not shown), but the description need not detail returns. The tool's simplicity means no further context is required.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 clearly uses a specific verb ('Redo') and resource ('the last undone action in FCP'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It directly contrasts with its sibling 'fcp_undo', providing immediate differentiation.

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 implies usage after an undo operation but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., only after an undo) or mention alternatives like 'fcp_undo'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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