redo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the environment ('Splice frontend') but does not explain side effects, what happens when there is nothing to redo, error behavior, or the effect of the 'namespace' parameter. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose efficiently.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still leaves critical context unaddressed: how the namespace scopes the redo, what happens if no undo history exists, and whether the operation returns a result. The description is too sparse for a complete understanding.

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 schema already describes 'namespace' as 'Target tab namespace' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about how this parameter affects the redo operation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the action ('Redo') and the specific resource ('the last undone command in the Splice frontend'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'undo' tool by explicitly naming 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 implies the tool is used after an undo, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or mention the 'undo' sibling. No exclusions or context are provided, so the usage cue is implicit rather than explicit.

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