redis_memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description relies on '[READ]' to signal a safe, non-mutating operation. It also discloses what metrics are reported, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or the return format, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded with '[READ]', and the Args section clearly documents the only parameter. Every element earns its place with no fluff.

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 stats tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential details for selection and invocation. It could be enhanced by mentioning when to use it over sibling tools, but as a standalone stats tool it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adequately explains the 'target' parameter as 'redis target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying provenance and default behavior, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool reads Redis memory stats, listing specific metrics (used vs maxmemory, eviction policy, fragmentation, peaks). The '[READ]' prefix indicates a read operation, and the focus on memory posture distinguishes it from sibling RCA tools like redis_memory_pressure_rca, though it does not explicitly name them.

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_memory_pressure_rca or redis_server_info. The only usage note is about the optional 'target' parameter, which is more parameter guidance than tool-selection guidance.

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