redmine_search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description effectively covers key behaviors: substring search semantics, status token handling (open, closed, *), saved query merging, pagination with capped limit, and return shape. Non-critical aspects like error handling or auth are omitted, but the core transparency is strong.

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: a one-line summary followed by clear bullet points for each parameter and a return structure specification. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all parameters and return value, with details on merging semantics and limit cap. However, it could mention default behavior when no parameters are provided or error cases (e.g., invalid query_id). Overall, fairly complete for a search tool with minimal complexity.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, format, Redmine-specific behavior (e.g., query_id merges other filters), and constraints (limit capped at 100). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

Description clearly states 'Search/list issues with optional filters and pagination,' identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_get_issue or redmine_search, which could cause confusion.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter descriptions (e.g., search with subject substring, filter by project/status), but no direct guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like redmine_get_issue or redmine_list_projects.

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