List issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not mention that the tool scans up to 500 issues, pagination behavior, or any other traits beyond what is implicit in the 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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits what the output looks like, sort order, and the practical limit of 500 issues (though implied in parameter descriptions). A more complete description would cover these aspects.

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?

With 86% schema description coverage, the schema already explains most parameters. The description only mentions 'optional filters and pagination' generically, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema's built-in descriptions.

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 lists Redmine issues with optional filters and pagination. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_issue' or 'search'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' for full-text or 'get_issue' for a single issue. The 'query' parameter description does mention using 'search' for full-text, but this is not in the main tool description.

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