List Redmine Projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is stated, but there is no explicit mention of no side effects, response format, or pagination behavior. It adds some context but not rich detail.

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 communicates the essential purpose and scope clearly and efficiently.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and visibility scope. Combined with the schema's min/max/default values, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it lacks explicit return format or pagination guidance.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' or 'offset' parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The input schema provides basic type/default but no explanatory text. The description is of no help for understanding how to use or combine parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'projects', with a clear scope of 'visible to the configured Redmine API user.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all issue-focused, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context by specifying it lists projects visible to the user, implying use when needing to enumerate projects. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use or name alternatives, but since all siblings are issue tools, the usage boundary is clear enough.

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