redis_smembers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: results are capped at 1000 members, and if truncated, a total count is returned. This informs the agent of limitations. However, it does not mention idempotency, locking, or authentication requirements, which are minor for a read-only operation.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, immediately followed by the critical cap behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, the description partially explains the return structure (truncation flag and total count). It is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but does not mention the array of members or error cases (e.g., key not a set). Still, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the main constraints.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (connectionId has a description). The description adds meaning for the key parameter by stating it operates on a set, but does not elaborate on format or constraints. For the connectionId, the schema already provides adequate info. Overall, the description adds moderate value beyond the schema for the main parameter.

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 all members of a set', specifying the resource and scope. It also explicitly mentions the capping behavior and truncation flag, distinguishing this tool from other Redis set operations like sadd, srem, and sismember. This provides clear purpose differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving all members of a Redis set, but does not address when not to use it (e.g., for large sets needing pagination) or mention related tools like SSCAN or SCARD. Implicit usage is derived from the name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions.

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