redis_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: unrecognized section names are silently ignored and listed in `ignored_sections` instead of raising an error. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Two sentences carry the essential payload: what the tool does, what the defaults are, and how edge-case inputs are handled. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the most important behavior 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 single-optional-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, defaults, and non-erroring edge-case behavior. The lack of an explicit list of valid sections is mitigated by the tool's tolerant handling of unrecognized names.

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 provides only the type and default for `sections` (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the default sections and the handling of unrecognized names, which is useful, but it never enumerates valid section name values or shows an example of the expected array format. This is a partial compensation, not a full one.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return selected Redis INFO fields.' It clearly lists the default sections and fields, and the tool is immediately distinguishable from the RQ-focused sibling tools. Even without opening the schema, an agent knows what this tool does.

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 gives clear context by explaining the default sections and how the sections parameter behaves. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but none of the siblings obviously overlap with Redis INFO inspection, so this is a minor omission rather than a confusion risk.

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