List reference data

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description mostly reinforces that it's a safe read operation. It adds useful behavioral context about the scope (instance-wide vs. project-specific) and what parameters the values map to, but doesn't add significant new behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences—no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and options, second gives usage advice and alternative. Well-structured, front-loaded, and every sentence is essential.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameters, usage, and alternatives. No output schema exists, but the tool's output (reference data list) is standard and needs no further explanation.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema by mapping each enum value to the specific id parameter it serves (e.g., 'statuses' for 'status_id', 'trackers' for 'tracker_id'), and explains the usage context for each kind. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description compensates with rich semantics.

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 that the tool lists legal values for id parameters in write tools, specifying the exact kinds (statuses, trackers, etc.) and how they are selected by the 'kind' parameter. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'redmine_get_project' by clarifying scope (global vs. project-specific).

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?

Explicitly says to call this before creating/updating issues or time entries to avoid guessing IDs, and provides an explicit alternative ('use redmine_get_project with include') for project-specific lists. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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