List Redmine project versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness, and the description reinforces this with 'This tool never changes Redmine data.' Beyond the annotations, it discloses meaningful behavioral traits: no pagination, no filters, no documented include controls, and Redmine preserves response order. This adds route-specific expectations that structured hints cannot convey.

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 only four sentences and front-loads the core action and endpoint first. Every sentence adds value: the parameter format sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the no-pagination/order-preservation and read-only assurances are highly relevant. It is tight without being terse, though slightly more concise phrasing of the parameter sentence would push it to a 5.

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 simple one-parameter, single-output tool with an output schema present, the description is fully complete. It covers the purpose, endpoint, parameter requirements, route limitations, response ordering, and non-mutating behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing, and the presence of a sibling get_version is implicitly distinguishable via the list-vs-single semantics.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter sentence, 'The required project_id is a positive numeric project ID or valid Redmine project identifier,' largely restates the schema property description without adding new semantics. It does not clarify behavior like validation errors, resolution order, or how identifier strings are treated, but the schema already documents the valid formats.

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 starts with a precise verb and resource: 'Read the visible/shared versions from GET /projects/:project_id/versions.json'. It names the exact endpoint and scopes the operation to a specific project, making the tool's function unmistakable. The phrase 'visible/shared versions' adds semantic nuance that differentiates this listing from a raw dump, and the singular sibling get_version is clearly a different operation.

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 clear context that this is a read-only list operation for a given project, and the 'for the configured Redmine API user' clarifies visibility scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_version or list_projects, nor does it state exclusions. The usage guidance is implied by the endpoint and verb rather than stated.

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