info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description mentions that the tool returns a dictionary or error message, but does not address side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral characteristics.

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 very concise, consisting of three short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without extraneous words.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter usage, and return type. It is fairly complete for a simple info command.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains the 'section' parameter, listing examples like default, memory, cpu. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema, though not exhaustive.

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 Redis server information and statistics,' providing a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which are other Redis commands like get, set, etc., by focusing on server-level stats.

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 implies usage for retrieving server info but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is implied but lacks explicit direction.

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