redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful scope: the effect is limited to a single draft edit and only one that was previously undone, which conveys stack-like semantics. It does not say what happens when the redo stack is empty, nor whether the operation is idempotent or itself undoable.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the exact target of the operation. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists and a zero-parameter signature makes this a simple tool, so the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it. The only meaningful gap is failure behavior when no edit is available to redo.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and nothing misleads about them.

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?

States a specific verb (Redo) and a specific resource/scope (the last undone draft edit), which is unambiguous. The counterpart sibling 'undo' is implicitly distinguished by the standard redo/undo pairing, but the description never names it or otherwise differentiates the two.

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?

'Last undone' implies the precondition that a prior undo occurred, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if there is nothing to redo, and no reference to the 'undo' sibling as the alternative.

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