redo

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

The description explains the return behavior (whether something was redone plus the canUndo/canRedo state) and clarifies the non-idempotent nature by saying it re-applies a previously undone edit. Annotations provide no detailed behavioral hints beyond booleans, so the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by return value information and a clear exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when not to use it. No output schema exists, so the explicit return-state description is especially valuable.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs, and schema coverage is effectively 100%.

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 action (redo) on a specific resource (the last undone edit in the editor). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'undo' tool and clarifies its narrow scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: it should not be used to repeat an arbitrary action, only to re-apply an edit that was just undone. This gives an agent clear selection criteria relative to other tools.

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