get_queue_depths

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the tool returns key names, types, and sizes, but does not disclose read-only nature, performance implications, or any destructive potential. Lacks warnings about large databases or timeouts.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences for the main purpose, plus separate Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section could be more formatted; it currently reads as prose. Still, no wasted 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?

Tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists (not shown). The description notes JSON output with key names, types, and sizes, which is sufficient for a simple query. However, it lacks edge case handling or notes on performance, which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has only one parameter 'db' with default 3 but no description. The description explains it as 'Redis database number (default: 3)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This adequately defines the parameter's purpose.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves keys and their length by type in a Redis DB. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and specific resource 'keys and their length by type', and is distinct from siblings like get_celery_queue_status or get_key_count_by_db.

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, no mention of prerequisites or context in which it is appropriate. The description is minimal and does not help the agent decide between siblings.

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