redmine_find_user

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying behavior: scanning recent issues, matching authors/assignees, returning IDs sorted by frequency, and clarifying that it is a workaround rather than a direct query. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or how it handles no matches, but the 'scanning' language implies a non-destructive operation and the sorting rationale adds useful context.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, then the rationale, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema details. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (user IDs sorted by frequency) and how to use the result. It references a sibling tool (redmine_search_issues) for follow-up, providing helpful integration context. It does not describe edge cases like no matches or multiple matches, but for a simple tool with detailed schema annotations, this is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including case-insensitive substring matching and scan_pages explanation. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete name fragment examples and explaining the sorting criterion ('most active match comes first'), which helps the agent understand the output ordering and parameter tuning.

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 purpose: to find a Redmine user ID by scanning recent issues for matching authors and assignees. It specifies the resource (user ID) and the method (scanning issues), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_get_users by positioning itself as a workaround for admin restrictions.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use this as a workaround for /users.json admin restrictions' and provides a concrete example of input ('Toyoda', 'yoshikuni', 'Murata'). It also gives clear guidance on what to do with the result: 'pass it to redmine_search_issues as author/assigned_to/updated_by', which serves as an alternative/downstream usage context.

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