List Redmine projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'This tool never changes Redmine data.' It also adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: only projects visible to the configured API user are returned, and pagination plus association inclusion are supported.

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?

Three sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by pagination and association capabilities, then a safety guarantee. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the explicit endpoint string and the word 'documented' add minor redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: resource scope, visibility, pagination controls, associations, and read-only behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds context that offset, limit, and page are pagination controls and that the include parameter supports the five listed associations, but this largely restates what the schema already provides. No critical parameter meaning is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('projects visible to the configured Redmine API user from GET /projects.json'). It clearly distinguishes this list operation from sibling getter tools like get_project by its scope (multiple projects) and the mention of pagination and associations.

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 context for what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_project or list_project_issue_categories. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'never changes Redmine data' statement implicitly rules out write purposes.

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