redis_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Status' implicitly conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation and 'per-user' scopes the call, but it does not disclose behavior when Redis is disabled or whether any special permission is needed. For a simple status endpoint this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single concise phrase with no filler, and it immediately communicates the resource and scope. For a zero-parameter status tool, this brevity is appropriate and well-structured.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no parameters, so the main missing elements are explicit read-only confirmation and usage differentiation from redis_enable/redis_disable. These are partially inferable from 'status', making the definition adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the per-user context note is helpful even though it is not a parameter detail.

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 names the resource (Redis) and scope (per-user), and 'status' indicates a read-only query. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', but it is still distinguishable from sibling tools like redis_enable and redis_disable.

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 checking a user's Redis status, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It also does not mention that redis_enable/redis_disable are the mutating alternatives, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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