get

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

The description details the return type as 'str, bytes' and notes that an error message may be returned on failure. However, it does not disclose that the operation is read-only (non-destructive) or specify behavior for missing keys beyond returning an error message.

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 concise, using a standard docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence delivers information without redundancy, though additional context on usage would improve completeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no annotations, output schema present but not detailed), the description covers the essential I/O. However, it lacks context on the Redis string data type and does not mention that the tool is read-only, which is relevant for an agent's decision-making.

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 schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates by explaining the 'key' parameter as 'The key to retrieve.' This adds basic meaning, but no format constraints, examples, or further elaboration are provided.

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 'Get a Redis string value', specifying both the action (get) and the specific resource type (string). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hget', 'json_get', etc., which target different data structures.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools offering varied retrieval methods, such as hget for hashes or json_get for JSON, explicit usage conditions are absent.

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