Get My Redmine Issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not mention sort ordering, pagination, status filtering, or that it returns a list. Without annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple getter. It does not earn extra points for depth but is not under-specified to the point of tautology.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with no descriptions, the description needs to provide more context. It only explains what the tool does, not how to use the parameters or what to expect in the response. The tool is too complex (5 optional params) for such a minimal description to be fully adequate.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of the 5 parameters. It does not clarify what sort, limit, offset, status_id, or project_id control beyond what the schema's types/defaults already show. The description completely fails to add value for parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get issues assigned to the configured Redmine API user.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues (broader search) and get_issue (specific issue). The wording is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's name.

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 the tool is for retrieving issues assigned to the configured user, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search_issues. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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