redmine_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states 'List all' but the schema includes a limit parameter defaulting to 100, so 'all' is misleading without mentioning pagination or limits. No return format, pagination behavior, or permission details are disclosed, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, scope, and output traits without wasted words. It earns its place and is highly scannable.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, few annotations), the description is mostly sufficient but has a clear gap: the 'all' claim contradicts the limit parameter, and pagination/limit behavior is not explained. This incompleteness prevents a higher 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 100% for the only parameter (limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter and even undermines understanding by saying 'all' while the schema caps results. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Redmine projects') and defines the scope ('you have access to') plus the included fields ('identifiers and status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target issues, wiki pages, or users.

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 the use case (listing accessible projects) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. It's adequate for a simple list operation but lacks explicit decision support.

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