list_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list Redis keys' and implies read-only operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, performance implications, return format, or the glob style of pattern matching. The schema hints at offset/limit, but the description adds no risk or side-effect context.

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 no filler: 'List Redis keys with optional pattern matching'. It is front-loaded with the main action and a key option, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 list tool, the description covers the core purpose and the schema handles parameter meanings. However, without an output schema or annotations, the return format, pagination default behavior, and possible performance caveats are not disclosed. It is minimally viable but leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 already provides complete descriptions and defaults for all three parameters (limit, offset, pattern), giving 100% coverage. The description only mentions 'optional pattern matching', which adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource ('Redis keys') and notes optional pattern matching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_data or exists_key, which operate on individual keys rather than enumerating them.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention scenarios where list_keys is preferred over alternatives like get_data or exists_key, nor does it explain exclusion conditions. The usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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