Restore edits that were undone, optionally applying multiple steps in Krita.
Redo edit(s) undone with undo.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "redo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | ||
| native | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the operation. It says nothing about whether redo is destructive to the redo stack, what happens on repeated calls, whether it requires a prior undo, or what the tool returns.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is good structure. However, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness given the two unexplained parameters.
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?
Redo is a simple operation, but with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves an agent guessing about multi-step behavior and the 'native' flag. A sentence or two more would make it callable with confidence.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the two parameters. The description never mentions 'steps' (implying multi-step redo) or 'native', so an agent has no guidance on their meaning, units, or defaults beyond the bare titles. This is a significant gap the description should have filled.
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 definition gives a specific verb (redo) and ties the resource to the sibling operation it reverses (edits undone with undo), so an agent can distinguish redo from undo at a glance. It stops short of differentiating from history or explaining the scope of 'edit(s)'.
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?
Usage is only implied through the phrase 'undone with undo', which suggests redo is invoked after an undo. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what happens when the redo stack is empty, and no reference to history as an alternative for inspecting undo state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.