redis_lrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: a cap of 1000 elements and a truncated flag with total count. However, it omits other traits like read-only nature, return format, or error cases. The disclosure is helpful 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the key constraint (cap and truncation). No extraneous 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?

For a list retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and important constraints. It implies the return of elements but does not explicitly state the return type (list of values). The cap and truncation details add necessary context. Given the tool's simplicity, this is mostly 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?

Schema coverage is high (75%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which already describes start, stop, and connectionId. The key parameter lacks a schema description and is not elaborated in the description.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'range of elements from a list', clearly stating the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redis_lpush, redis_lpop, etc., though it does not explicitly differentiate from other list read operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redis_llen, redis_lpop). The description lacks context about prerequisites or explicit conditions for use.

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