redis_server_info

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' marker is concordant with it. The description adds value by enumerating the response content (version, role, clients, ops/sec, hit rate), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the target is unreachable.

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?

Front-loaded with the read marker and the resource, followed by a tightly scoped content list, then a single-line Args note. Every clause earns its place and there is 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?

For a single-parameter, zero-required read tool with annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the lone parameter. It is essentially complete; only cross-tool routing among the many redis siblings is absent.

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 parameter burden, and it does: 'target: redis target name from config; omit for the default' fully explains the single optional parameter, including the omit-for-default semantics that the schema only implies via default: null. It could go further by describing the config source or naming behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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 (read) and resource (server identity + health) and enumerates the exact content returned: version, role, clients, ops/sec, hit rate. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings such as redis_memory_stats, redis_clients, or redis_keyspace. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative among the many redis_* siblings. The only guidance offered is parameter-level ('omit for the default'), which is not usage routing. An agent must infer that this is the general-purpose starting-point tool.

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