redo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement about erroring when the redo stack is empty, no permission or scope requirements, no note on whether unsaved state is affected. Only the bare redo-stack semantics are conveyed.

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?

Three words, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though the '(s)' parenthetical is a slightly sloppy substitute for actually documenting the repeating behavior.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but misses the edge cases an agent needs: empty redo stack, interaction with 'undo', and the meaning of 'steps'. Not wrong, just thin.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'steps' parameter (1–50). The description's '(s)' hints that multiple actions may be redone, but it never explains that 'steps' controls how many, nor its default or maximum, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (redo) and resource (undone action(s)), so its effect on project history is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'undo', but the operation is a standard editor concept and hard to mistake.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus 'undo', whether a prior undo must exist, or what scope (project, sequence, panel focus) the redo applies to. The agent must infer everything from the one-word purpose.

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