fgui_redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: prioritizing agent property transactions and falling back to native redo when the transaction stack is empty. This adds meaningful context beyond the name, though it does not cover side effects or return behavior, which is acceptable given the output schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key behavior. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's operation and its unique fallback behavior. However, it assumes prior knowledge of 'Agent property transactions,' which could be clarified for full context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 tool redoes actions, with a specific focus on agent property transactions and a fallback to native FairyGUI redo. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fgui_undo and specifies the exact operation and behavior.

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 usage for redo operations and explains the priority of agent property transactions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The fallback behavior hints at when native redo is used, but explicit guidance is missing.

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