List Redis foreign servers

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation. The description adds significant value: it reveals that the tool returns an empty list when the redis_fdw extension is not installed, which is not encoded in annotations. It also lists the exact return fields and clarifies the output structure. No contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. The purpose is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to read. No extraneous information.

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?

The description covers all necessary context: it explains what the tool does, how to use the optional parameter, what the output contains, and handles the edge case of missing extension. With an output schema present (implied by the field list), the description is comprehensive.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds further context: it explains that the parameter is optional, targets a secondary read-only database, and advises calling list_databases to see configured IDs. This enriches the schema's minimal description.

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 tool lists foreign servers backed by redis_fdw. It specifies the exact fields reported (address, port, database, TLS posture, password_configured, options). The verb 'list' and resource 'Redis foreign servers' are precise, and the tool is distinguished from the generic sibling 'list_foreign_servers' by specifying the FDW type.

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?

The description explains when to use it: when you need info about Redis foreign servers. It also mentions the optional 'database' parameter for targeting secondary databases and directs users to call 'list_databases' to see configured IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., list_foreign_servers for other FDWs), though the context makes it clear.

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