Performance Redis Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether Redis must be configured, what happens when it is absent, or what class of data comes back. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but the description adds no operational context at all.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it flirts with under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

The tool is trivially simple (no params) and has an output schema, so much of the burden is offloaded. Still, with no annotations the description leaves unaddressed the precondition that Redis be configured and how this differs from the adjacent performance diagnostics, which is a meaningful gap in a dense sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get Redis server info), and the 'Redis' qualifier implicitly separates it from the nearby performance_memcached_stats sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with other performance_* diagnostics, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus performance_memcached_stats, performance_cache_stats, or performance_query_log. No prerequisites are stated (e.g., that a Redis backend must be configured for the call to return anything meaningful).

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