redmine_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, rate limits, required permissions, or pagination behavior. It only mentions the endpoint and supported params, which is minimal for a search tool.

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 concise and to the point, with a single sentence that covers the key purpose and parameters. However, it could be structured more clearly, for example using bullet points or separating the common params from the nested query object.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., list of results, total count). It mentions pagination params (max_pages) but not how they affect results. For a search tool, it is missing crucial context about return format and scope limitations.

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 lists additional query params beyond those in the schema (e.g., issues, news, documents), which adds value by hinting at searchable scopes. However, it does not explain how to use these params (they likely go into the 'query' object) and schema coverage is only 25%. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but is incomplete.

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 searches Redmine using a specific endpoint and lists many supported query parameters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_api_request which also makes HTTP requests, or redmine_paginated_request which handles pagination.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not explain the scope of search (e.g., full-text search across multiple entities) or provide examples. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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