redmine_groups_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only GET operation and warns that admin permissions may be required, which is meaningful context. However, it omits pagination behavior, what happens when called without admin rights, and response characteristics.

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?

Two short clauses with zero wasted words; the purpose is front-loaded and the permission caveat follows. Every word earns its place.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It covers purpose and a permission caveat but not pagination semantics, the meaning of fetch_all, or what the returned group list contains, leaving an agent to guess at correct invocation.

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 must compensate, but it adds nothing about limit, offset, or fetch_all. The schema's defaults and min/max values give some meaning, yet the semantics of fetch_all and how pagination interacts with the admin requirement are left entirely to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List groups') and augments it with the exact API endpoint (GET /groups.json). With a sibling tool redmine_group_get present, an agent can immediately distinguish listing from fetching a single group. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redmine_group_get, redmine_users_list, or redmine_search. The admin-permission caveat hints at a prerequisite but does not explain when the tool is appropriate, when it is not, or what conditions should select another tool.

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