redmine_list_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: 'Read-only; makes no API request' discloses the safety profile and an important side-effect guarantee for an introspection tool. It does not mention rate limits or caching, but for a static endpoint catalog that is minor.

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?

Two short body sentences plus an Args line, with the core purpose front-loaded before the usage hint and the read-only guarantee. Nothing is wasted and it reads cleanly.

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 read-only endpoint lister with an output schema (which handles return-value documentation), the description covers purpose, usage routing, side-effect behavior, and the parameter. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does: 'optional case-insensitive substring over method/path/purpose' explains both optionality and the fields searched. This fully documents the lone param.

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 known Redmine REST endpoints') and enumerates the returned fields (method, path, purpose), making the resource unmistakable. It also names the sibling redmine_request as the companion, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other list_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a clear condition: use this 'to find the right path/verb before calling' redmine_request, explicitly naming the alternative tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when the path is already known), so it 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.