redmine_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Search Redmine for issues, wiki pages, and more' without disclosing default search behavior, scoping, pagination, or whether authentication is needed. The schema hints at features (scope, limit, offset) but the description adds no behavioral 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 15 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. Every word is present, but it fails to convey crucial information.

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 has 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, default scope, or how pagination works. The schema provides parameter details but the description lacks an overview of the search behavior and results.

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 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as relationships, defaults, or usage restrictions. With high coverage, 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?

The description clearly states it searches Redmine for issues, wiki pages, and more, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like redmine_list_issues or redmine_get_wiki_page that operate on single types without a free-form query.

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 usage for searching across multiple resources but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like redmine_list_issues (which lists without a query) or redmine_get_wiki_page (single item). No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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