redis_advisor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the sampling method (SCAN), the four categories (big_keys, missing_ttls, eviction_pressure, fork_latency_risk), and the thresholds used. It also clarifies that findings are over the sample, not the whole keyspace. No contradictions.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the four categories with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters (all with defaults and descriptions in schema) and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it explains what the tool returns (four categories with severity and fixes), how it works (sampling), and safety considerations. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not re-explain each parameter but provides high-level mapping between parameters and categories (e.g., sampleSize affects key sampling). This adds some context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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's purpose as a 'Rolled-up Redis health lint pass' that returns four categories of findings with severity and actionable fixes. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and resource ('health lint findings'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redis_scan or redis_key_info by providing a comprehensive health assessment in one call.

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 provides explicit context for safe usage: 'Keys are sampled via SCAN (never KEYS), so it is safe on a large production instance.' It implies comprehensiveness but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tools suggest more specific purposes, but the description itself lacks explicit guidelines.

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