get_indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and potential error messages. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, nor does it discuss authorization or side effects beyond the error note.

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: two lines plus a return type annotation. Every sentence is necessary. The key action is front-loaded ('List of indexes'), making it immediately understandable.

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 existence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description need not detail return values further. It already mentions the format. The tool is simple with no parameters, so the description covers the necessary information. A slightly higher score would require mention of no required arguments, but that is implied by the empty schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description adds value by explaining the return type (JSON string), which is not in the input schema, thus compensating for the lack of parameters.

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: 'List of indexes in the Redis database'. The verb 'List' and resource 'indexes' are specific, and the return type is provided. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_index_info' which focuses on a single index.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'get_index_info' provides details for a specific index, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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