List Redis connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact returned field set and the security guarantee that passwords are never returned. It stops short of covering auth requirements or any rate/size limits, so not a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the substantive content (what is listed) is front-loaded ahead of the security caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and the password-exclusion guarantee, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only list tool; only the response_format parameter and any pagination/size expectations are left unaddressed.

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 single parameter response_format has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The enum values (markdown/json) are self-explanatory, but with zero coverage the description should have compensated and does not, leaving the output-format choice undocumented in prose.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (Redis connections) and enumerates exactly what is returned: connection IDs, environments, logical databases, and access modes. This is enough to distinguish it from redis_scan_keys, redis_command, and the mysql/mongo connection listers without opening any schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the sibling tools that consume these connection IDs (redis_command, redis_execute). The discovery role is only weakly implied by the phrase 'connection IDs'; no context or exclusions are given.

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