redis_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the return envelope and the meaning of 'truncated', explicitly warning that a truncated result is not the complete set. With no output schema present, this disclosure is genuinely additive; it does not, however, say how to obtain the remaining rows.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one bracketed line, then a compact Args block and the return contract. Every element earns its place, though the envelope explanation runs slightly long for a single-parameter read tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input semantics and the return shape including truncation, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The missing piece is any indication of how to page past a truncated response.

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 carry the parameter, and it does: 'target: redis target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the source of valid values and the default behavior of the nullable parameter. That fully compensates for the empty schema description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — connected Redis clients — plus the ordering ('grouped by source address, busiest first'), which lets an agent predict the shape of the result. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_connections or redis_kill_client, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only guidance is how to supply 'target' ('omit for the default'), which is parameter help rather than usage routing. There is no statement of when to inspect clients versus using redis_kill_client, list_connections, or the RCA tools, and no prerequisites are named.

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