redis_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning null for non-existent keys, which is critical for an agent to handle results. It also implicitly indicates a read-only operation (no side effects mentioned). While it doesn't cover error conditions or permissions, for a simple GET operation this is adequate.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the important null-return behavior. No redundancy or unnecessary details. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 get operation with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns when the key is missing. It lacks alternative routing guidance but that is covered under usage guidelines. The tool is simple enough that an agent can call it correctly with this description.

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 compensate. The description says 'by key' but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 'key' property. It does not explain key format, naming conventions, or provide any example. For a single parameter, the description adds minimal value beyond restating the parameter name.

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 action ('Get a string value by key') and the resource (string value). It distinguishes itself from siblings like redis_mget (multiple keys) and redis_type (type check) by specifying single-key string retrieval. The mention of returning null for missing keys adds clarity.

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 implies usage for single-key retrieval but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like redis_mget or mention when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, though the wording 'by key' implies a single key context.

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