redmine_my_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add the accepted status value semantics ("open"/"closed"/"*" or a named status), which is genuinely beyond the schema, but the default status and the return shape it lists are both already present in the structured fields. It says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, or permissions.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then tacks on the wrapper note and defaults. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value listing is not strictly needed and the description needn't expand on it. For a simple read-only list wrapper with no annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly, though the limit/offset gap and absence of any safety statement leave a small hole.

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 is the only source of meaning. It explains status values thoroughly, but limit and offset are never described in the prose — their meaning is only inferable from the returned shape. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States the specific resource and scope: issues assigned to the current user. It also names the sibling it wraps (redmine_search_issues) and frames the use case, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other issue tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly frames this as a convenience wrapper over redmine_search_issues for the common "what's on my plate" query, which tells the agent when to pick it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for other users' issues), but the routing context is clear.

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