redis_inspect

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions outputs but does not disclose side effects (likely none), error behavior on missing key, or whether the operation is read-only. Incomplete behavioral context.

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?

One sentence of 11 words. Efficient and front-loaded with core purpose. Slightly lacking in detail but not verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers basic outputs. However, 'small preview' is ambiguous, and absence of format details leaves some gaps. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 'key' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only says 'for a key' without specifying format, allowed types, or constraints. Adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool inspects a key's type, TTL, size, and preview. It distinguishes from siblings like redis_get (gets value) and redis_scan (scans keys) by specifying inspection of metadata.

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 use for inspecting a key, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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