redmine_list_relations

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

The description states 'Read-only' and describes the output fields (id, issue_id, issue_to_id, relation_type, delay). However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and this information is missing.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple list tool with one required parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential elements: what the tool does, the parameter, and the structure of the response. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 description adds context to the issue_id parameter by stating 'numeric Redmine issue id', which is slightly more informative than the schema's 'Issue Id' (type integer). With schema coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates but does not fully explain the parameter's format or constraints.

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 all relations on an issue (both directions)', specifying the verb 'list', resource 'relations', and scope 'on an issue'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_add_relation and redmine_remove_relation.

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 for viewing relations before modifying, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like redmine_add_relation or redmine_remove_relation. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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