godot_redo

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the useful behavioral nuance that the operation targets the 'active' editor undo/redo manager rather than a specific scene, but it does not disclose what happens when there is nothing to redo or what state changes result.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence that puts the verb front and center with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the action and target adequately. However, it leaves meaningful gaps: the meaning of 'active' is unspecified, the prerequisite of a prior undo is implied but never stated, and failure behavior (no-op when the redo stack is empty) is absent.

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 description itself contains zero parameter information, but the input schema's description for history_id is thorough, covering optionality and the default target ('currently edited scene undo history'). With only one parameter and a well-documented schema property, the description's silence is tolerable, so the baseline of 3 applies despite the 0% schema-coverage context signal.

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 verb ('Trigger redo') and a specific resource ('the active Godot Editor undo/redo manager'), making the action unambiguous. It is clear and semantically self-evident against its main sibling godot_undo, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use redo versus its alternative godot_undo, nor any prerequisites such as the existence of a prior undo operation. No exclusions, no conditions, and no context about when the tool will succeed or fail are provided.

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