redis_hgetall

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates a read operation, but does not disclose what happens if the key does not exist (e.g., returns empty or nil) or that it is non-destructive. The behavior is largely understood but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it is minimal and could include more useful context without being verbose.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits error behavior, return format, and usage context. It is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 50% (connectionId described, key not). The tool description mentions 'a hash', which implies the 'key' parameter is the hash key, but adds no explicit detail about either parameter beyond the schema. Baseline is appropriate as it adds marginal meaning.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('a hash'), and the scope ('all fields and values'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redis_hget (single field) and redis_hexists (checks existence).

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 retrieving an entire hash but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., redis_hget for single fields) or prerequisites for the key existence.

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