redmine_get_project_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether authentication is needed, how pagination behaves beyond the parameter descriptions, what the default status behavior is, or what the response contains. This is thin coverage for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence that immediately identifies the main action and scope, with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers the core operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent receives no guidance on return format, error behavior, or when to prefer a sibling tool, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 all six parameters, including defaults and filter semantics. The description adds only generic 'optional filters' context, which is marginal, but no parameter is left undocumented, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('issues'), and clear scope ('from a specific project'), and notes optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_get_issue (singular) and redmine_get_issues_by_status (status-scoped rather than project-scoped).

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 when this tool is appropriate—when issues tied to a specific project are needed—and the phrase 'optional filters' signals flexible use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like redmine_get_issues_by_status or redmine_get_issue, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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