redis_command

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the read-only and allow-list constraints and the outcome for writes, but it omits important details such as connection requirements, error behavior, and what the allow-list includes.

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 short and front-loads the most important constraint: read-only allow-listed commands. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being maximally informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It explains the safety boundary but not argument structure, connection handling, or expected results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies that the command is a Redis command subject to an allow-list, but it does not explain the command string format, the args array, or connection_id, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: running a Redis command, with the key constraint that it is read-only and allow-listed. It clearly identifies the Redis domain, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from generic siblings like db_query or db_execute.

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?

It gives clear usage context by specifying read-only Redis commands and explicitly states that writes return UNSUPPORTED. This establishes when to use it and when not to use it, although it does not name alternative tools for write operations.

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