Redis Memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The metric list (used, peak, fragmentation, evictions) usefully tells the agent what output categories to expect, but the description does not disclose the data source (e.g., derived from INFO memory), that the operation is read-only, or failure behavior.

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 line with zero wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by a compact list of scoped metrics. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only metrics tool with an output schema present, the metric scope covers most essentials. However, the missing differentiation from redis_info/linux_memory and the silence about the params field leave noticeable gaps for an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

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 exposes one opaque param 'params' (additionalProperties: true, default null) at 0% coverage, and the description adds nothing about parameters. The agent is left to guess that the tool likely accepts no meaningful arguments; neither schema nor description states this.

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?

Names the resource (memory) and a specific metric set (used, peak, fragmentation, evictions), which distinguishes it from the Redis siblings redis_ping, redis_clients, and redis_slowlog. The phrasing 'Анализ памяти' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'Get', so it falls just short of a 5.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs redis_info, which also surfaces memory statistics, or linux_memory, which covers host-level memory. With two realistic overlapping siblings, the absence of any routing or exclusion language is a real gap.

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