redis_key_info

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains TTL semantics, encoding examples, and memory usage via MEMORY USAGE command. It fully discloses what the tool returns and its non-value-reading nature.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by return details and usage advice. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, TTL meaning, safe inspection, and use case. No gaps remain.

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 already describes 'key' as 'The key to inspect' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific details (e.g., format, patterns), only behavioral context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 single key's metadata (type, TTL, encoding, memory, idle time) without reading its value. It distinguishes from sibling redis_get by explicitly recommending use before retrieval.

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?

Explicitly recommends using before redis_get to avoid pulling large values, and to spot big keys/missing TTLs. While it doesn't enumerate all alternatives, the guidance is strong and context-specific.

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