redmine_list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and lists return fields, adding transparency. However, it does not mention potential pagination, response limits, or authorization requirements.

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 succinct with no wasted words. It conveys the purpose, argument details, and return field overview in a few sentences, maintaining good readability.

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's simplicity (single parameter, has output schema), the description covers the main aspects. It lacks details on error handling or pagination but is largely complete for its scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds value by specifying that 'project' accepts a 'numeric id or identifier slug,' clarifying the accepted format beyond the schema's string type.

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 explicitly states 'List all versions / milestones defined on a project,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_get_version (singular), redmine_create_version, etc.

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 explains the required project parameter format (numeric id or slug). While it implies usage for listing all versions, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like redmine_get_version for single version retrieval.

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