redis_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Report' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify the return value for a nonexistent key (Redis returns 'none'), nor does it mention whether it errors or how it handles empty keys. For an agent, knowing that missing keys return 'none' (not an error) is important to handle gracefully. The description is minimal and does not surface these edge-case behaviors, hence a low score.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the exact action and resource with a list of possible types. Every word earns its place; there is zero waste. The structure clearly leads with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description is mostly adequate but fails to mention the return value for missing keys, which is a key behavior an agent would need. It also does not state that it is a read-only operation explicitly, but that is implied. For a low-complexity tool, the missing edge-case detail leaves it slightly incomplete.

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 schema has no description for the 'key' parameter (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The description says 'a key's' which maps 'key' to the parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. The name is self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., full key path, raw key string) or any constraints. Since the parameter is obvious and there is only one, a 3 is fair.

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 action ('Report') on a specific resource ('a key's Redis type'), and enumerates the possible types (string/hash/list/set/zset/...). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redis_get (retrieve value) and redis_exists (check existence). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately differentiated.

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: use this tool to determine the type of a key before performing type-specific operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need the actual value use redis_get, when checking existence use redis_exists). The context is clear enough for a simple tool, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided. A 3 is appropriate for implicit guidance without explicit when-not-to-use.

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