rhino_cmd_redo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Redo one or more operations' and what the return value is, but does not explain that this modifies document state, whether changes are reversible, how it interacts with the undo/redo stack, or what happens when there is nothing to redo.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the args/returns structure is easy to scan. However, the mention of 'controller: RhinoController instance' is irrelevant to the actual schema and should be removed, and the parameter explanation is redundant with the schema.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description provides the minimally necessary information: what it does, the parameter meaning, and the return type. However, it lacks any mention of undo-stack requirements, error conditions, or relationship to sibling undo/redo commands, leaving the agent without enough context in ambiguous situations.

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%, so the description needed to explain the parameter meaning, but it only restates the schema's name and default: 'steps: Number of redo steps (default 1).' It adds no constraints, valid ranges, or edge-case behavior. It also lists a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, which is misleading.

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 opens with 'Redo one or more operations,' which clearly identifies the action and target resource. It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_redo or rhino_cmd_undo, so it misses the differentiation needed for a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_undo, rhino_cmd_undo, or rhino_redo. The description does not mention undo history prerequisites, when a redo would fail, or situations where another tool should be preferred.

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