redis_keyspace

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

There are no annotations provided, but the description explicitly marks the operation as [READ], indicating it is safe and non-mutating. It also states the data source. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, output size, or failure modes, relying solely on the [READ] label for safety transparency.

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 concise: a purpose statement and a parameter definition. The [READ] prefix and purpose are front-loaded, and every word is informative with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more information. While it states the core purpose, it does not describe the return format, behavior across multiple databases, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has one optional parameter with no description, but the tool description explains 'target: redis target name from config; omit for the default.' This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and default behavior, exceeding what the 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 clearly states it retrieves per-db key counts and expiry coverage from INFO keyspace, specifying the resource and data source. The [READ] prefix signals its read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like redis_server_info, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redis_server_info or memory stats. The description only describes what it does and the parameter, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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