redis_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares the operation as read-only with the '[READ]' tag, explains the grouping and ordering (by source address, busiest first), and details the return envelope including the 'truncated' flag and its meaning ('do not treat this as the complete set'). This is genuine transparency beyond basic expectations.

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 tightly structured: a two-line summary with a useful '[READ]' prefix, then short 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff, no repetition. It is front-loaded with the most important information and remains concise despite covering parameter and return semantics.

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?

Despite having only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, the parameter meaning, the exact return envelope structure, and the truncation behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool, with no significant gaps.

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 schema provides only a parameter named 'target' with a default of null and no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining: 'target: redis target name from config; omit for the default.' This tells the agent exactly what the parameter means and how to use it, which is critical given the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear, specific action: '[READ] Connected redis clients grouped by source address, busiest first.' This states exactly what the tool does (lists connected Redis clients) and how results are organized, distinguishing it from siblings like redis_server_info or redis_slowlog. The resource (redis clients) and verb (list/read) are unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is a read-only listing of connected Redis clients, with a truncation warning that guides interpretation of partial results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X,' but the read-only nature and the contrast with sibling write tools like redis_kill_client are implicit. The truncation note is a practical usage guideline.

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