redmineflux_core_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful filter behavior (e.g., empty project_id means all projects, status_id special values, sort syntax, max limit). However, it does not describe the return shape, potential errors, or any read-only/authorization implications beyond the output schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clean 'Args:' list for parameter details. Each parameter line earns its place with meaningful semantics. Slightly lengthy for a one-tool description but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present and all 7 parameters semantically documented, the description is nearly complete for a listing tool. The only gap is the absence of usage guidance (when to use vs alternatives), which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter in detail: project_id empty semantics, status_id allowed values, tracker/assignee zero-means-all, limit max, offset pagination, and sort syntax. This far exceeds what the schema properties alone provide.

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 'List issues with filters' with a specific verb and resource. It is obvious this is a list operation, distinguishing it from 'get_issue' by name, but it does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'List issues with filters' and does not mention when to prefer get_issue for a single issue or when list_projects would be appropriate.

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