Reapplies the last undone garden design action, restoring changes after an accidental or unwanted undo.
Redo the last undone action
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "redo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this mutates document state, what happens when the redo stack is empty (no-op vs error), how many steps can be redone, or whether the history is shared with 'undo'. For a state-mutating history tool this is a meaningful gap.
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 six-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
The tool is simple, so a one-liner covers the core action, but with no annotations and no output schema the definition should say something about empty-history behavior and the interaction with 'undo'. It is adequate to call correctly but leaves the agent guessing at edge cases.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object.
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?
A specific verb (Redo) plus resource (the last undone action) that an agent can immediately understand. The pairing with the sibling 'undo' is implicit in the word 'undone' rather than stated outright, so differentiation is clear but not spelled out.
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 mention of 'last undone action' implies the tool applies only after an undo has occurred, which gives an implicit when-to-use. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or how it relates to the 'undo' sibling, leaving the agent to infer the history semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.