rhino_redo

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

Annotations do not include readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It merely restates that the tool redoes operations, but does not disclose what redoing entails for document state, what happens when there is nothing to redo, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it sacrifices useful behavioral detail for brevity.

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 one-parameter redo command, the description gives enough to attempt a basic call, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks important context such as what happens when the undo stack is empty, how the steps parameter behaves, and how this differs from the similarly named rhino_cmd_redo sibling.

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 reported as 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'steps' parameter. The plural 'operation(s)' hints at multiple operations, but does not clarify the parameter's role, default, range, or effect.

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 uses a specific verb ('Redo') and identifies the resource ('last undone operation(s) in the Rhino document'), making the core purpose clear. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling rhino_cmd_redo, which has the same apparent purpose.

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 or rhino_cmd_redo. The phrase 'last undone operation(s)' implies it should follow an undo, but no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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