rhino_redo

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the agent can infer it is a mutating but non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose what happens if there is no operation to redo, whether it modifies the document state, or any side effects. Since annotations are sparse, the description carries the burden, and it fails to deliver.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. While it is extremely brief, this is appropriate for a no-parameter operation, and the sentence earns its place by stating the core functionality.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to convey the basic action. However, it is incomplete in that it does not address edge cases (e.g., behavior when there is no undo history), nor does it mention that the tool is part of an undo/redo pair. Given the simplicity of the tool, a score of 3 reflects that it is functional but leaves important context unstated.

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 input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 operation: redo the last undone operation. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling rhino_undo beyond the name and the word 'redo', so it lacks explicit 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_undo or other editing operations. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an undo must have occurred) or conditions that would make redo inappropriate. This is a significant gap for a tool whose sibling set is large.

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