redis_sscan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains pagination (one page at a time), cursor continuation, termination when cursor is 0, and sorted ordering. It implies a read-only operation (SSCAN is a scan, not a write), but doesn't mention error semantics, time complexity, or potential cost for large sets. The reference to 'the same reason HGETALL is avoided above' adds context but relies on external information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination details. There is no wasted text; every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to use it. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (paginated scan) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics: purpose, pagination, and continuation. It mentions the reason for pagination (avoiding SMEMBERS/HGETALL) which adds rationale. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but the cursor mention implies the response includes a cursor and members, enough for an agent to iterate. Overall, it's reasonably complete for safe invocation.

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. It explicitly explains the cursor parameter ('Pass the returned cursor back in as `cursor` to continue; 0 means done'), which is the key semantic. It also implies that `key` is the set key via 'set's members'. While `key` isn't elaborated further, the inference is straightforward. The description adds meaningful value beyond parameter names.

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 a specific operation: 'One SSCAN page of a set's members, sorted.' It identifies the resource (a Redis set) and the action (paginated scan), and explicitly contrasts with SMEMBERS to show what it is not. This distinguishes it from siblings like redis_hscan (for hashes) and redis_scan_keys (for key patterns).

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 indicates this is the paginated alternative to a single SMEMBERS call, implicitly suggesting it for large sets or when full retrieval is unwanted. It also mentions the continuation pattern via cursor. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other scanning tools beyond SMEMBERS, leaving some room for interpretation.

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