redmine_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation. The agent cannot infer whether this tool modifies data or requires special permissions.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning pagination or default limits.

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 and no description of the return format or pagination behavior. With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of issues with fields). Incomplete.

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 documents all 10 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'with optional filters', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists issues from Redmine with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (single issue) and 'create_issue' (creation). However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all projects vs current project).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue'. It is implied that this is for listing multiple issues, but no when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.

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