Redo

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a small behavioral detail by specifying that the operation applies to the 'last undone change,' but it does not elaborate on side effects or failure conditions beyond that.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant explanation. It is front-loaded and communicates the essential operation in minimal words.

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 parameterless command with an output schema and annotations covering the destructive/write behavior, the description is sufficient. An agent can correctly invoke 'redo' after an undo without additional context.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The schema is fully covered, so the description does not need to explain any parameter details; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 action ('Redo') and a specific target ('the last undone change'), which is clear and distinct from the sibling 'undo' in meaning. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls just short of top-tier 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?

Use of this tool is implied: it should be called after an undo when the user wants to reapply that change. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling 'undo' tool, leaving the guidance implicit rather than direct.

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