redis_keys

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the 200-key cap, which is a useful limit, but omits critical details: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not explain Redis glob pattern syntax, does not address the session_name parameter's role, and does not clarify what happens when the cap is exceeded (e.g., truncation without warning). These gaps are significant for a tool with no annotation support.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key constraint (capped at 200). It avoids filler and is efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description leaves essential context missing. It does not explain the pattern semantics, the purpose of session_name, or the implication of the cap. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but parameter semantics and usage context are still under-specified for a tool with no annotations.

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 provides no descriptions for pattern or session_name, and the description adds no explanation of either. Pattern is only a default '*' with no mention of Redis pattern rules; session_name is completely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states a clear verb (list) and resource (Redis keys) with a specific qualifier (matching a pattern, capped at 200). It is distinct from siblings like redis_get, redis_set, and redis_delete, which operate on individual keys rather than enumerating them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that it is a discovery tool for key exploration, nor does it contrast with redis_get or other listing tools like db_list_tables. Agents are left to infer use cases from the name and description alone.

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