Redis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returns 'A dictionary of server information or an error message' which provides some output context, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, performance characteristics, or what specific information sections contain. For a server information tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes purpose, the second explains the parameter, the third describes returns. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Given a single parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It explains what the tool does and the parameter's role, but lacks details about output structure, error conditions, or practical usage context. For a server information tool, more detail about typical information sections would be helpful.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial value by explaining the 'section' parameter's purpose ('The section of the info command') and providing examples ('default, memory, cpu, etc.'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't provide exhaustive section options or format details.

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 purpose with 'Get Redis server information and statistics' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Redis server information and statistics'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that mostly manipulate data rather than retrieve server metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other informational tools (though none exist in the sibling list).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for server information retrieval, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to other tools that might provide similar information. The agent must infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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