Redo

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as being applied at frame boundaries and returning '{queuedRedo}'. However, since annotations lack readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description does not fully disclose whether this operation is safe or destructive, though the nature of a redo implies mutation.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds necessary context (frame boundaries and return value) without any wasted words.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (though not detailed in description but implied by return value mention), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, timing, and return behavior. It is complete for a simple redo tool, though it lacks any mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 clearly states that the tool redoes the undone operation, using a specific verb ('やり直す' - redo) and resource (the undone operation). It also mentions frame boundary application and return value. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'dx12_undo', which is the inverse operation.

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?

The description mentions that it is applied at frame boundaries, which provides a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dx12_undo', nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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