undo.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 of behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to specify that this operation modifies state (destructive), requires a previous undo operation to be effective, or what happens if no undos exist. The description essentially provides no behavioral information beyond the word 'redo', leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or preconditions.

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 extremely short ('Perform redo.'), which is not concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the tool name. A single sentence that explains parameters, preconditions, or effects would be more efficient and helpful. As it stands, it could be considered 'missing' rather than concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, related sibling tools for undo/redo), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value (e.g., status), the effect on the session state, or how it relates to 'undo.undo', 'undo.revert', etc. A redo operation typically requires a prior undo and modifies history; none of this is conveyed. The agent cannot use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, meaning the description must fully explain parameters. The only parameter is 'session_id' (required, type string), but the description gives zero information about its purpose, format, or constraints. The agent is left to infer that 'session_id' identifies the session for which to redo, but no details are provided. The description should explain that 'session_id' is the identifier of the session where the redo operation should be performed.

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 is 'Perform redo.' which is a tautology — it restates the function implied by the name 'redo' without specifying what action is being redone or what the tool affects. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'undo.undo' or the other und/redo tools like 'undo.revert', 'undo.begin', 'undo.commit'. A better description would clarify the scope of redo (e.g., 'Redo the last undone operation in the current session') to differentiate from undo operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'undo.undo' or when not to use it. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., requirement of a prior undo commit), or mention that it only works after an undo. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine the appropriate conditions for invocation.

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