set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional expiration and return type, but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing keys, creates new keys, or any side effects. Basic behavior is described, but important details are missing.

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 paragraph with clear sections: summary line, Args, Returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized.

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 the complexity (many siblings, no annotations), the description covers the basic operation but lacks details on usage differentiation and behavior like overwriting. The return type is simple and stated, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add value. The Args section clearly explains each parameter's type and optionality (e.g., value can be str, bytes, int, float, dict; expiration is optional). This adds meaning beyond the schema's anyOf definitions.

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 'Set a Redis string value with an optional expiration time,' which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get, delete, hset, etc., by specifying the Redis string value operation.

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for string values, but no exclusions or comparisons with siblings like hset or json_set are given. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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