redmine_list_child_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It establishes a read-only list operation and discloses useful operational traits: the limit is capped at 100, offset skips results, and empty assignee means all users. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are less critical for a simple list.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then efficiently lists argument semantics. Every sentence and argument entry earns its place with no redundant boilerplate.

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 moderate five-parameter list operation and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers all parameters and pagination constraints, though it could add a brief note about ordering or the relationship to search_issues for filtering beyond children.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all five parameters with added meaning: issue_id as the parent issue, assignee as numeric id or 'me' with empty meaning all, status values referencing search_issues, limit as page size capped at 100, and offset as result skipping.

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 and resource: 'List an issue's child tickets.' It adds the optional assignee filter, making the scope clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_issues or get_issue.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and the optional assignee filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for broader issue searches. The reference to search_issues is for parameter value reuse, not tool selection.

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