List my assigned Redmine issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the authentication context and ordering, which are useful behavioral traits not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination defaults or that it only returns issues visible to the token user (e.g., permissions limitations), so it doesn't go far 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?

The description is two sentences with no waste. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 simplicity, 3 params (all optional with defaults), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It might benefit from noting that results are limited to issues visible to the token's user (permissions), but the tool name already implies this. Minor gap, so 4.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, status) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no information about these parameters, but the baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting. No need for extra parameter explanation.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Redmine issues assigned to the user...'), and the authentication context ('represented by the server's configured API token'), clearly distinguishing it from general list_issues. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly specifies the scope (only issues assigned to the token user) and ordering (most recently updated). It implies that this is the tool to use for personal assigned issues, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_issues or mention when not to use it. Given the naming and sibling context, the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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