redmine_versions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) implying read-only, but it does not mention any behavioral aspects such as pagination, ordering, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the endpoint.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the endpoint. There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately concise.

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 list operation with one parameter, the description is minimal. It does not describe the return structure, any filters, or potential edge cases. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be expected to fully inform the agent.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter (project_id) fully, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, but since coverage is 100%, this is acceptable.

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 the action 'List versions / roadmap for a project' and provides the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_version_get, which retrieves a single version, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for listing versions but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It could have noted that redmine_version_get is for individual versions, but this is only implied by the sibling context.

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