editor_redo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core function and fails to mention edge cases (e.g., behavior when there is no undone action), side effects, or any state requirements. The description adds no context beyond what the name implies.

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, short sentence that efficiently states the action. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not state usage context (e.g., that it should follow an undo) or potential failure scenarios. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for such details, making this minimal description only partially complete.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The trivial 100% schema coverage makes this dimension minimally satisfied.

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 'Redo last undone action' clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource, and it semantically contrasts with sibling tool editor_undo. It is unambiguous about what action is performed.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like editor_undo. The description merely states the function without specifying prerequisites, context, or that it should be used after an undo operation. There are no exclusions or alternative references.

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