redmine_list_queries

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

The description states the tool is 'Read-only,' which implies no side effects. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and lacks further behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: first line states purpose, then a parameter explanation, then usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary text.

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 tool has an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers the key aspects. Minor missing details like the definition of 'visible' queries could be added, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The schema has no description for the parameter, but the tool description explains that project_id is optional, can be an id or slug, and that empty returns all visible queries. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'List available saved queries,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_list_issues or redmine_search_issues by focusing on saved queries, and further clarifies that the returned IDs can be used with redmine_search_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 provides context on how to use the tool: listing queries and then using the IDs to execute them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like directly searching issues without a saved query.

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