Redis Clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that the tool executes a CLIENT LIST command (implying a read-only operation) or any side effects, performance implications, or error conditions. The agent gets minimal behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and to the point, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond what the output schema provides (which is fine), but it also doesn't mention any filtering options or conditions that might affect usage. For a simple tool, more context about the data returned 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only a generic 'params' object that can be any object or null. Since the schema provides no meaning, the description could compensate by explaining what parameters are accepted, but it doesn't. However, with a single free-form params object and no documented parameters, the baseline for a tool with zero schema coverage is low, leading to a score that reflects the schema's inadequacy rather than the description's fault.

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 the tool lists client connections, which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, it is in Russian and lacks detail on scope or filtering, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like redis_ping or redis_info. The purpose is adequate but not fully elaborated.

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 such as redis_info or redis_slowlog. No context is given about typical use cases or what situations warrant checking client connections.

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