redis_hmget

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what happens if the key does not exist, field order in output, or any performance or error implications. The description is too vague.

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 5 words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundancy. It is maximally concise.

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's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is too sparse. It omits important details like return format, ordering, missing field handling, and the requirement for the hash to exist.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('The hash key', 'List of field names'). The description adds no new semantic information beyond this, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'multiple fields from a hash,' distinguishing it from siblings like redis_hget (single field) and redis_hgetall (all fields). It 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 vs. alternatives (e.g., redis_hget for single fields, redis_hgetall for all fields). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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