analyze_keyspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety and side effects. 'Analyze' and 'Checks' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output format, sampling behavior, or potential operational impact, making the transparency only partially adequate.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and follows with specific checks, ensuring every word adds value.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description lists the major analysis areas, which gives a good sense of what the tool covers. However, it does not describe the return format, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema, so it is not fully complete.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema fully covers the empty parameter set.

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+resource ('Analyze Redis keyspace distribution') and enumerates concrete checks (TTL coverage, cache hit/miss rates, database distribution, expiry patterns). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_memory or analyze_slowlog.

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 first sentence provides clear context that this tool is for keyspace analysis, differentiating it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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