client_list

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get a list'), which is appropriate. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on performance implications, authorization requirements, or whether the list is comprehensive or paginated.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (list of connected clients). It could mention that the output format is a list of client objects, but the tool's simplicity mitigates the gap.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. The simplicity of the tool means no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a list of connected clients from a Redis server. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (connected clients). However, it does not distinguish this tool from other list-related sibling tools like scan_keys or get_indexes, though the resource is unique.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., read-only nature).

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