redis_type

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

The description does not disclose what happens when the key does not exist (e.g., returns 'none' or throws an error). Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it falls short.

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 short sentence conveying the core action without any unnecessary words, achieving maximum conciseness while being front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning return values (e.g., 'returns string type or none if key missing'). The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description remains minimal.

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 single parameter 'key' is already described in the schema as 'The key to check.' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so the 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 'type of a key', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like redis_get (which returns the value) and redis_exists (which checks existence) by focusing solely on type retrieval.

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 versus alternatives like redis_exists or redis_get. An agent is left to infer that checking type is useful before type-specific operations, but no explicit context is given.

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