redis_memory_stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add value by naming the metrics returned (used vs maxmemory, eviction policy, fragmentation, peaks), but says nothing about permissions, target resolution failures, or whether it hits a live server versus cached config.

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?

Two short blocks, front-loaded with the read-only marker and the payload summary before the argument note. Nearly every word earns its place; the only slight redundancy is '[READ]' duplicating readOnlyHint.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the minimum necessary by enumerating the metrics returned, and the one optional parameter is explained. It stops short of describing return shape or format, but for a simple single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 full burden for the single 'target' parameter — and it does, explaining it is a Redis target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. This is exactly the compensation the low coverage requires, though it doesn't hint at valid target naming or error behavior.

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+resource (reads Redis memory posture) and enumerates the reported facets: used vs maxmemory, eviction policy, fragmentation, peaks. It is clearly a read-only snapshot tool, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling redis_memory_pressure_rca, which sounds like it answers a related question.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no named alternative. The only usage-like text ('omit for the default') is parameter guidance rather than a condition for choosing this tool over redis_memory_pressure_rca or redis_server_info.

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