redmine_issue_relations_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET), implying a non-mutating read operation, but it does not mention pagination, response shape, or any side-effect guarantees.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the operation, resource, and exact endpoint compactly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only list operation, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, action, and endpoint. The lack of an output schema and description of return fields is a minor gap, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the information given.

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. The endpoint path '/issues/:id/relations.json' clarifies that issue_id is the target issue whose relations are listed, but the description does not add much beyond the parameter name and the obvious URL mapping.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('relations for an issue'), with the exact endpoint. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling relation-mutation tools like redmine_issue_add_relation and redmine_issue_remove_relation, though it does not explicitly name them.

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: the verb 'List' and the GET endpoint indicate a read operation for retrieving an issue's relations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools or any exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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