redis_config_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It signals read-only via [READ] and explains the target fallback, but does not mention return format, auth, or empty-match behavior. Adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 lines: intent, then two parameter explanations. No wasted words. The front-loaded [READ] tag helps.

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 two optional parameters, the description covers core operation and parameter semantics. It lacks return format and edge cases, but given simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern as 'Config-name glob' with an example, and target as 'redis target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema fields.

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 clearly states it performs 'CONFIG GET for a glob pattern' with a concrete example ('maxmemory*'). The [READ] prefix and command name distinguish it from mutation siblings like redis_config_set.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. While siblings include redis_config_set, there is no contrast between reading and writing config. The description implies use for fetching config values but does not define exclusions.

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