redis_command

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it details that read-only commands always run, mutating commands require a flag, and arbitrary commands are never exposed. It explains the safety gate is a curated allowlist, which is crucial for safe usage.

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 paragraph but packs essential information efficiently: purpose, behavioral rules, and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 complexity of Redis command execution with safety gates and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: allowed/disallowed commands, prerequisites, and alternatives. It is complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting that for multi-word commands the subcommand is the first arg, which clarifies the 'args' parameter usage beyond the schema description.

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 'Run a single Redis command through the safety gate,' specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that typed tools (redis_get, redis_scan, redis_key_info) are preferred where they exist, and that KEYS should use redis_scan.

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 explicitly says when to use (commands without a dedicated tool) and when not to (prefer typed tools, KEYS via redis_scan). It also provides conditions for mutating commands (ALLOW_WRITES=1) and lists blocked commands, giving clear alternatives.

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