get_commandlog_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads from 'persisted storage' and is a 'get' operation, implying a non-destructive read. It also clarifies the scope (patterns including slow, large-request, large-reply). No contradictions.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: the first states the action and scope, the second differentiates from a sibling. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return format or structure of patterns. It mentions 'analyzed COMMANDLOG patterns' but does not describe what these patterns contain (e.g., fields, counts). While it addresses scope, it lacks detail on output.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 'Get analyzed COMMANDLOG patterns', specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_slowlog_patterns by explicitly noting the inclusion of large-request and large-reply patterns, making its purpose unique.

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 mentions 'Valkey 8+ only', providing a clear prerequisite. It directly compares to get_slowlog_patterns, giving context on when to use this tool over its sibling. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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