redmine_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the parenthetical '(read-only)' is redundant restatement. The description adds nothing about error behavior for unknown resources, required auth, or how params interact with the target resource.

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?

A single terse sentence with no filler and the key qualifier '(read-only)' front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the fragment style leaves no room for the routing context an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents the parameters. The remaining gap is the failure to explain how this generic tool relates to the many resource-specific getters, which is exactly what an agent must decide before invoking it.

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%, with each of the three parameters documented in the schema itself (including examples for params, resource, resource_id). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and scope: fetching a single Redmine resource by id. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with redmine_list, so an agent can distinguish the retrieval shape from the listing sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this generic fetch versus the specialized siblings get_issue, get_project, get_wiki_page, or get_attachment. The agent is left to infer that redmine_get is a fallback for resource types without a dedicated tool.

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