rpush

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the optional expiration but omits critical details: that it creates the list if missing, errors on type mismatch, atomicity, and the return value (list length). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its complexity, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating action and optional behavior).

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 lack of annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases (missing list, type mismatch), does not specify return value (though output schema exists, the description still lacks behavioral completeness), and omits usage context. A more comprehensive description is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters (name, value, expire) but lacks details: no explanation that 'name' is the list key, no value type constraints (binary, string, int, number), and no unit for expire (seconds). The description adds minimal value over the schema's titles.

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 action ('Push a value onto the right of a Redis list') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lpush (push left) by specifying 'right'. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lpush, rpop, or lrange. The description only states the action without any contextual hints for selection.

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