undo_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Get ... information" implies read-only, but it doesn't disclose what the state information contains, whether calling it affects the undo stack, or any side effects. For a tool whose whole value is the returned state, this is a significant gap.

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 six-word sentence with no filler, and the core verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what this tool returns, and it says only "state information." An agent cannot tell whether it gets a boolean, a step count, or a label list, so the definition is not complete enough for reliable use.

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 100% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the name-or-index union and the front-document default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("undo/redo state information"), so the operation is identifiable as a read. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools undo, redo, undo_beginGroup, and undo_endGroup, which an agent could easily confuse with this query-only tool. Purpose is legible but undifferentiated.

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 indication of when to call this versus undo, redo, or undo_beginGroup, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document). The agent is left to infer that this only inspects state rather than mutating the undo stack.

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