redmine_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains search behavior (all_words, titles_only, open_issues, attachments mode), pagination, and returns format. It could mention ordering or rate limits, but is otherwise thorough.

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 well-structured with a summary then bullet-like Args section. It is reasonably concise given 9 parameters, though some wording could be tighter (e.g., 'Empty searches all' repeated for project and resource_types).

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, return format, and behavioral details. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates excellently. Each parameter is explained with allowed values, defaults, and behaviors (e.g., resource_types lists allowed types, attachments explains '0', '1', 'only', query is required and non-empty). This is well beyond what schema provides.

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 'Full-text search across all Redmine resource types' and lists the types. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `redmine_search_issues` by noting that it covers more resource types. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly mentions that it complements `redmine_search_issues`, which only covers issues with structured filters, guiding the agent on when to use this tool. It also provides detailed parameter usage, such as project scoping and resource type filtering.

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