redis_mget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and the return structure, but does not disclose behavior on missing keys (e.g., omission or null), permission requirements, or error handling. For a read tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return format. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the operation. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the basic contract (fetch multiple values, return as mapping). However, it omits details like missing-key behavior, type restrictions (though it says 'string values'), and any permission implications. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description hardly explains the 'keys' parameter beyond what the schema already shows. It does not clarify that keys are Redis keys, what constitutes a valid key, or that the values retrieved are strings (though 'string values' hints at the value type). The description adds little to parameter interpretation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('multiple string values'), and the return format ('as {key: value}'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like redis_get (which fetches a single value) and other type-specific tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a batch operation by saying 'multiple', but it does not state that redis_get should be used for single keys, nor does it mention any other exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage context.

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