redmine_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds one genuinely extra behavior: an unrecognized resource name returns the available resource list, which is useful for recovery from bad input, but it says nothing about pagination limits or error behavior beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core capability stated first and the fallback behavior second. Appropriately sized for a thin generic wrapper, though the phrasing 'Any Redmine resource list' is slightly loose.

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?

With 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics, but the most important missing piece for a generic tool surrounded by specific siblings is routing guidance, which is absent. The unknown-name fallback is the one real added behavior.

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%, so the schema already explains limit, offset, filters, and resource (including snake_case examples). The description adds only the coarse 'filtered or all' distinction, which the filters description already states, so this sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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?

It conveys a generic verb+resource ('Any Redmine resource list, filtered or all') and notes the read-only nature, but 'Any ... list' is vague about scope and gives no differentiation from the specific sibling listers (list_projects, search_issues, list_time_entries, list_versions, list_project_members, list_wiki_pages). An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to prefer this catch-all or a dedicated 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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The only implicit usage signal is 'Unknown names return the list of resources,' which suggests a discovery path but never says when this generic tool should be chosen over the specific list_* siblings.

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