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 only states that the tool redos the last undone editor action, offering minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens when there is nothing to redo, potential side effects, or reversibility, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the core purpose.

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 trivial no-argument tool, the description is adequately complete. It states the action and target, and given the sibling tools (undo, get_undo_history), the user can understand when to use it. However, it does not cover edge cases such as empty redo history, but this is minor for such a simple 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The schema has no properties and the description is not required to explain parameter semantics, making this appropriate.

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' the 'last undone editor action,' which clearly identifies the operation and its target. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'undo' tool by explicitly referencing previously undone actions.

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 implies that the tool should be used when there is an undone action to redo, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. The presence of the sibling 'undo' tool provides indirect context, but no direct guidance is given.

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