get_rq_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful context about what information is surfaced, but no additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, cost, or network sensitivity. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates the return contents. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and implies an environment-overview use case, though it could have briefly contrasted itself with redis_info or list_queues.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are automatically satisfied and the description does not need to compensate. The 100% schema description coverage and empty properties schema make parameter confusion impossible.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and specifies the resource ('Redis/RQ environment') and the exact contents: connection status, versions, queue names, and worker count. It is clear enough to distinguish from the more specialized siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself like the get_calls example.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redis_info, list_queues, or list_workers. The description states what it returns but provides no exclusions, conditions, or explicit routing to sibling tools.

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