Krita Redo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the core effect—redoing the last undone action—but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as a no-op or error when the undo stack is empty, or whether an active Krita document is required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. Every word adds meaning.

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 no-parameter, single-action tool, the description is largely complete, and an output schema is present to cover return values. It could be more complete by noting the no-op behavior when no undone action exists, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supplement. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Redo the last undone action in Krita.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling krita_undo by semantic opposite.

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 phrase 'last undone action' establishes the clear precondition that an action must have been undone first, implying use after krita_undo. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state what happens when there is nothing to redo, but the usage context is evident.

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