project_undo_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose whether inspecting the stack has side effects, how the stack is ordered (oldest-first vs newest-first), whether it is cleared by undo calls, or what the response structure looks like.

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 four-word sentence with no wasted words, making it structurally efficient and front-loaded. It is under-specified, but as a conciseness measure this is near-ideal; the issue is missing content, not verbosity.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (no params), there is no output schema and the description never explains the shape or semantics of the returned undo history stack. An agent cannot predict whether it will receive a count, a list of action names, timestamps, or something else, which is a material gap for a read tool.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics the description needs to clarify. The 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied since the tool takes no arguments.

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 supplies a verb ('Return') and a resource ('undo history stack'), so the core action is understandable. However, it essentially restates the tool name and is vague about what the stack actually contains (commands? entries? metadata?), and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling action tools like project_undo, project_redo, and project_save_undo.

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 call this tool versus the closely related undo/redo siblings. An agent gets no indication that this is the inspection tool to invoke before deciding whether to call project_undo, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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