get_redis_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get Redis server information' implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not mention what data is returned, whether sensitive information is exposed, or any rate limits/auth requirements. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose immediately, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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?

Despite the low complexity, the description is incomplete because it does not specify the contents of 'server information'. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about return values. It could at least mention likely fields (e.g., version, uptime, memory). The sibling tools further create ambiguity about exact scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, making the schema complete and the parameter semantics irrelevant. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds no param details but none are required.

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's action (Get) and resource (Redis server information). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_database_stats or get_memory_info, which also return server-related data. It is specific enough for a simple read operation but lacks scope detail.

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 sibling tools. The description gives no context on scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without differentiation cues.

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