redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It doesn't disclose failure behavior when there is nothing to redo, whether new edits invalidate the redo history, or whether this requires an open editor/session.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the size is mismatched to a two-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain target selection and the multi-step behavior. It leaves both gaps and gives an agent only a bare conceptual gloss.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both 'path' and 'steps', and the description never mentions either. Critically, an agent would not learn from the description that multiple steps can be redone in one call — that only shows up as an undocumented integer defaulting to 1 in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Redo') and target ('edits that were undone'), which is enough to place it as the inverse of the sibling 'undo'. It doesn't say anything about scope (which editor/document the history belongs to), but the core operation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus 'undo', no prerequisite stated (e.g. that a prior undo must exist), and no note on what happens if the redo stack is empty. The agent must infer all routing from the one-line description.

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