redmine_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists actions including delete but offers no behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the irreversibility of delete. The agent is left unaware of side effects.

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 very short (single sentence) but fails to front-load essential information. It is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. A slightly longer description with structure would be more helpful.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of the action parameter, how to target specific issues, or the behavior of pagination (limit, max_pages). The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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?

Schema coverage is only 44%, meaning many parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the action list. Without elaboration on parameters like issue, query, or headers, the agent cannot infer usage patterns.

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 is for managing Redmine issues and lists the supported actions (list, get, create, update, add_note, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_issue_relations by focusing on core issue operations, but could be more specific about scope.

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 vs alternatives like redmine_api_request for custom requests or redmine_issue_relations for relation-specific tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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