redis_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. It does state '[READ]' and lists the read-only information returned, implying a non-mutating operation. However, it does not disclose any permissions required, potential errors, or how the tool behaves when the target is omitted beyond 'omit for the default' (which is a param detail, not behavior). For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact, with a clear summary at the start and a concise parameter explanation. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently conveys purpose, parameters, and read-only nature. It lists the key output fields, though not exhaustively. Some information about return format or error handling is missing, but for a health info tool this is a minor gap.

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 only parameter, target, is fully explained in the Args section: it specifies the Redis target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, giving meaning to the parameter beyond its schema type.

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 identifies the tool as returning Redis server identity and health metrics (version, role, clients, ops/sec, hit rate), which distinguishes it from more specific Redis tools like redis_memory_stats or redis_clients. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, instead using '[READ]' and a label, which is still fairly clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings is provided. The phrase 'health basics' implies general overview, but there's no stated alternative for deeper dives or exclusions. The context signals show siblings covering specific areas (memory, latency, clients), but the description itself doesn't mention them.

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