redis_config_get

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

The description's '[READ]' marker merely restates readOnlyHint=true from the annotations. It adds no behavioral context such as auth/permission requirements, whether sensitive values are masked, or what the response shape looks like, so it contributes little beyond the structured annotation.

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?

Short and front-loaded — the operation and its example come first. The 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with the schema but stays compact with no wasted prose.

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 two-optional-parameter read of server config, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the return format — with no output schema, the agent gets no hint that CONFIG GET returns name/value pairs for the matched glob.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does document both parameters: 'pattern' as a config-name glob with default '*', and 'target' as a redis target name from config with omission meaning the default. This adds real meaning over the bare schema titles, though no glob syntax or target-format examples are given.

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: 'CONFIG GET for a glob pattern', with a concrete example ('maxmemory*'). The '[READ]' tag signals it is the read-only counterpart to redis_config_set, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the '[READ]' tag and the CONFIG GET semantics, but the description never says when to reach for this instead of redis_server_info, redis_config_set, or other inspection tools. It is adequate but leaves the routing to the agent.

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