redmine_get_projects

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 usefully discloses that results are scoped to the API key's access rather than all Redmine projects, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or the shape of returned data, and the schema already documents the limit parameter.

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, tightly worded sentence conveys the core action, resource, and access scope without redundancy. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 optional parameter, the description is adequate: an agent knows what the tool returns and under what access restrictions. The absence of an output schema and annotations leaves room for more detail about result fields or pagination, but that is not critical for basic invocation.

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%, and the only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies; it neither improves nor harms 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 states a specific verb ('Get list of'), a clear resource ('Redmine projects'), and the exact scope ('that the API key has access to'). It clearly distinguishes this list-retrieval tool from siblings like redmine_get_project, which targets a single project.

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 to use it—when you need the full set of projects visible to the API key—and the sibling set makes the contrast with redmine_get_project obvious. However, it does not explicitly state 'use redmine_get_project for a single project' or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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