redmine_get_issues_by_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get all issues' but the schema includes a limit parameter with a default of 50, which is misleading about the result set size. It also does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether the operation is read-only, though the verb 'Get' suggests it.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant filtering context without redundancy.

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 read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate, but the 'all issues' claim is not qualified by the limit default, and there is no mention of the response shape or pagination. These gaps matter more because there is no output schema and no annotations to fill them.

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 100%, so the schema already documents status_name, project_id, and limit clearly. The description adds examples of status values and clarifies the all-projects vs. specific-project filter, but it does not materially expand on the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 verb and resource: 'Get all issues with a specific status' and gives concrete examples of valid statuses. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like redmine_get_project_issues, but the status-centric focus is distinct enough for an agent to infer the purpose.

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 gives useful context: it can filter by a project or search across all projects. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as redmine_get_project_issues, redmine_get_issue, or redmine_get_issue_tree, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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