bulc_undo

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying mutation ('undo') without contradiction. The description adds value by specifying that it returns information about what was undone, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, keeping the score moderate.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds crucial return information, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return info but misses details like error handling, what constitutes 'last operation,' or dependencies on other tools. With annotations providing safety cues, it's complete enough but not robust.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline. It efficiently avoids redundancy, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' which is a minor gap.

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 verb ('undo') and the resource ('last operation'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulc_redo' by focusing on reversal rather than repetition. However, it doesn't specify what types of operations can be undone (e.g., creation, deletion, modification), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It doesn't mention if there are limitations (e.g., only one undo level, specific operation types), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'bulc_redo' for context. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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