vector_search_hash

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 it returns a list of matched documents or error, but lacks details on read-only nature, performance impacts, error conditions, or whether it modifies data. Basic functionality is covered but insufficient for a non-annotated tool.

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 structured with a summary line followed by docstring-style args and returns, which is clear but slightly verbose. The key action is front-loaded, but the docstring format adds extra lines that could be condensed for a more concise tooltip.

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 that there is an output schema (unseen but present), the description only needs to summarize return values, which it does. All 5 parameters are explained, and the tool's purpose is complete for a search operation. Minor omission: no mention of how vector_field relates to hash structure.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose and type (e.g., 'List of floats to use as the query vector', 'default index name'). It also clarifies optionality for return_fields. However, details like valid ranges for k or constraints on query_vector are missing.

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 it performs KNN vector similarity search using Redis 8+ on hash data structures, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hybrid_search which combines vector and text search, and search_redis_documents which is for full-text search.

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 implies usage for vector similarity search on Redis 8+ but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like hybrid_search or search_redis_documents. No when-not guidelines or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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