redmineflux_system_onboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'who you are, your projects, your assigned tasks, and your teammates,' making the output behavior explicit. It does not explicitly label the operation as non-destructive, but the verb 'get' and the orientation nature imply a safe read operation. A score of 4 reflects that it communicates the essential behavior without over-disclosing.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage triggers and return contents. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 orientation tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and what it returns. The output schema can handle structural details of the return value, so the description does not need to elaborate further. The zero-parameter schema also needs no additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. It also correctly implies that no arguments are required, aligning with the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Get orientation information for the current user.' It specifies the resource (orientation info for the current user) and the verb (get), distinguishing it from the sibling CRUD tools that handle specific projects or issues. It also lists exactly what it returns, eliminating ambiguity.

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 explicitly provides usage triggers: 'Use this when someone is new, confused, or asks "where do I start?", "what should I do?", or "help me get started."' This is clear, contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool, and since no other sibling tool offers similar onboarding orientation, no alternatives are needed.

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