redis_exists

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose whether it returns a count or boolean, error behavior, or prerequisites like an active connection. Minimal information for a read operation.

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 at three words, no fluff. However, it lacks explicit structure (e.g., return value mention) but is still efficient for a simple tool.

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 simplicity, presence of output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain multi-key behavior or return value format, but these are covered by other artifacts.

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 parameter 'keys' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'check if keys exist', so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check if keys exist' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like redis_get (retrieve values) or redis_type (check type). It is specific enough to infer the basic operation.

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 (e.g., before redis_get to avoid errors, or vs redis_type). Lacks context for effective selection among siblings.

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