gui_undo

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'trigger an undo'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as what gets undone, whether there are multiple undo levels, what happens if there's nothing to undo, or any side effects on the application state.

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 with no unnecessary words. Every part of the description is essential and conveys the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding behavioral details. It does not explain the scope of the undo (e.g., last action only) or error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, but with no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no gap.

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 states the verb 'trigger' and the resource 'undo' within the specific context of 'the Anki GUI'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from numerous sibling tools that deal with notes, cards, decks, and other specific actions.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since 'undo' is a common UI action, usage might be implied, but the lack of context (e.g., 'use after any modification') or exclusions makes it only minimally adequate.

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