List Redmine saved queries

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: endpoint semantics, configured-user scoping, pagination defaults and caps, ordering by query name, visibility rules, and an explicit 'never changes Redmine data' statement. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 three compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by useful pagination/ordering behavior and then exclusions. Every sentence adds relevant information with no redundancy or 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fully covers the invocation context: endpoint, user scope, pagination behavior, ordering, visibility, and unsupported filters. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly without surprises.

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 restates pagination controls, defaults, and caps, but adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. The 'orders by query name' detail is a collection behavior, not an additional 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 uses specific verbs ('Read', 'List') and identifies the exact resource ('saved issue queries') and endpoint ('GET /queries.json'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues or list_my_assigned_issues by clarifying that these are saved queries, not issues.

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 implies usage context by naming the resource and listing exclusions ('does not expose project, resource-type, or include filters'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to prefer sibling tools. This is implied usage rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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