redis_zrange

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two significant behaviors: a 1000-member cap per call and a pagination convention consistent with redis_lrange. This helps an agent understand limits and iteration. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, error conditions, or return format, which are minor but notable gaps given no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences, with the core purpose and key constraint (capped at 1000) front-loaded. The pagination reference is in the second sentence. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and a key limit, but lacks essential parameter semantics and return format details. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly, especially for optional parameters like with_scores. It is adequate for a simple range operation but not complete for a tool with these gaps.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for parameters, and the tool description does not compensate. 'Key', 'start', 'stop', and 'with_scores' are named, but the description does not explain their semantics (e.g., zero-indexing, defaults, meaning of null stop, or output format when with_scores is true). The vague phrase 'same pagination convention as redis_lrange' hints at start/stop behavior but does not explicitly define it. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct arguments without prior knowledge.

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 resource as a sorted-set and the operation as retrieving a range of members. It distinguishes from list ranges (redis_lrange) by explicitly saying 'sorted-set', and the cap and pagination note adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly state the verb 'return' or 'fetch', so it is slightly less direct, but still 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?

The description implies usage for sorted sets (via the term 'sorted-set') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like redis_lrange (for lists) or redis_sscan (for scanning). The reference to 'same pagination convention as redis_lrange' hints at similarity but does not provide exclusion guidance. Usage is mainly implied by the resource type.

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