xrange

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states the return type as a string and mentions error messages. No disclosure of ordering (e.g., by time), range semantics, or idle handling. The agent gets minimal behavioral insight.

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 docstring format with Args and Returns sections. No redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 a separate output schema, the return value is partially explained, but the description's 'str' return is too vague for stream entries. The tool has many siblings, yet no mention of typical Redis stream behavior (e.g., ID range, order). The description feels incomplete.

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 (no property descriptions). The description compensates by listing the key and count parameters with brief explanations. However, it omits the fact that xrange typically uses start/end IDs, leaving the count parameter's role incomplete.

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 'Read entries from a Redis stream' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xadd (write) and xdel (delete), but does not explicitly differentiate from other stream-reading methods like xread.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to other stream reading approaches. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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