db_redis_info

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

The description includes '[SAFE]' indicating no destructive side effects, but with no annotations, it doesn't fully disclose behaviors like rate limits or auth requirements. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. The '[SAFE]' prefix immediately conveys safety, and the structure is front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter usage, and safety. It could mention the output format (e.g., raw INFO string) but is otherwise complete.

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 description explains that the section parameter can specify a section or be omitted for all, providing meaning beyond the bare schema which only defines type without explanation. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable.

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 retrieves Redis server INFO, with the ability to specify a section or get all. It distinguishes from sibling tools like db_redis_health by focusing on detailed info.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It lacks context for proper selection among many database health/info tools.

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