Redo command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully explains the rationale ('restores the step and takes nothing away') and that the redone command is reported. It does not address the non-idempotent hint or how the redo stack behaves, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the sibling relationship. The trailing fragment 'One undo step.' is terse but earns its place by bounding the scope.

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 an output schema covering the returned command and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs purpose and counterpart context, both of which it supplies. Remaining gaps (redo-stack state, empty-stack behavior) are minor for a zero-parameter tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Its scope note 'One undo step' correctly signals that no step identifier or count is accepted.

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 ('Redoes') plus the exact resource ('the undo step taken back last') and names the sibling it is the counterpart of, rillsoft_history_undo. An agent can distinguish this from the undo tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as the counterpart to rillsoft_history_undo, which tells the agent it is the reverse operation used after an undo. It does not state any exclusion (e.g. what happens when the redo stack is empty), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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