redis_list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that returned connection info is masked/desensitized and that the default connection is included, implying a safe read-only introspection. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether credentials are ever exposed, or how many connections might be returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the three things returned with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting is covered elsewhere, and a zero-parameter read-only list tool needs little more. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the three sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-level information is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb (查看/list) and resource (Redis 连接), and enumerates exactly what is returned: connection aliases, masked connection info, and the default connection. This is clearly a metadata/introspection tool, cleanly separable from siblings that operate on keys or execute commands.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus redis_execute_command, redis_inspect_key, or redis_scan_keys, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must a connection be configured first). The distinction is inferable from the domain but is never stated.

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