undo_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the return shape, the measured rather than guessed truncation behavior, the meaning of effectVerified, and the fact that target is unused, plus the limit cap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into return semantics, caveats, and parameter documentation. Each sentence adds unique value; no filler or redundant restatement.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies a complete picture: return format, parameter behavior, truncation semantics, verification caveats, and how to proceed with undo_apply. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must document parameters itself. It fully explains limit's default and cap and explicitly states that target is accepted but unused for CLI uniformity. This goes well beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first).' It clearly differentiates from the sibling undo_apply by describing the inspection role rather than the application role.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to see pending undo tokens before applying one. It also tells the agent to use the returned undoId with undo_apply and to re-run with a higher limit when truncated is true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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