redmine_paginated_request

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

The description explains the pagination mechanism (offset/limit using total_count) but lacks details on response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and misses several important behavioral aspects.

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 concise sentence with clear verb and object, front-loaded with the action. It avoids fluff but could benefit from additional structuring to cover usage or return behavior.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the default pagination behavior (e.g., auto-follow pages up to max_pages). An AI agent would lack critical context for correct usage.

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 description coverage is high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as clarifying the 'query' object's array behavior or the default/max values of 'limit' and 'max_pages'.

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 it calls a Redmine list endpoint with pagination handling, using specific terms like 'offset/limit pagination' and 'total_count'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_api_request which likely does not handle pagination automatically.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_api_request or specific endpoint tools (e.g., redmine_issues). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparisons are provided.

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