redis_rpush

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool is blocked when the connection's readOnly mode is enabled, which is useful. However, it omits other important behaviors: it does not mention auto-creation of the list if it does not exist, return value (new list length), or error scenarios. This partial disclosure earns a mid-range score.

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 at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of closely related sibling tools (e.g., lpush, rpop), the description should explain return value (new list length), side effects (list creation), and typical use cases. It currently only provides a minimal operation statement and a blocking condition, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema has three parameters (key, value, connectionId) but only 33% have descriptions (connectionId). The tool description adds no parameter information; it does not explain what 'key' (list name) or 'value' (element to append) represent. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Append a value to a list' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redis_lpush (prepend) and other list operations, and the additional context about readOnly mode does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 vs alternatives such as redis_lpush or redis_rpop. The description mentions a blocking condition (readOnly mode) but does not explain appropriate contexts or exclusion criteria.

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