List Redmine issue relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context beyond that: error semantics ('may return HTTP 401, 403, or 404'), Redmine's issue and related-project visibility enforcement, absence of pagination, and that returned links are safe base-path browser links for valid IDs. The closing line 'This tool never changes Reddit data' is consistent with the annotations and reinforces the safety profile.

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 five sentences, slightly longer than strictly minimal, but every sentence carries distinct information: endpoint and scope, input constraint, absence of pagination, response/link behavior, and error/visibility semantics. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema that covers return shape, the description is nearly complete: it covers input constraints, mutational safety, auth failures (401), visibility enforcement (403/404), and the out-of-scope behaviors (no filter or pagination). That depth of context is still slightly above what a simple read tool needs.

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 100% and the schema already documents issue_id as a positive integer with an exclusive minimum of 0 and a safe-integer maximum. The description repeats 'one positive safe numeric ID,' adding a safety framing but no new format or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Read'), an exact resource ('visible relations for one Redmine issue'), and the precise endpoint ('GET /issues/:issue_id/relations.json'). The scope ('one issue', all visible relations, no query controls) distinguishes it from the sibling get_issue_relation, which fetches a single relation. This makes the tool's role unambiguous against the 33 sibling tools.

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 gives clear situational context: it lists all visible relations for one issue for the configured API user, and explicitly notes the route 'has no query controls or pagination' so an agent knows it cannot filter or page results. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_issue_relation or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full exclusions-based 5.

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