redmine_get_project_versions

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 states the basic operation without disclosing return format, pagination, or whether archived/inactive versions are included. The 'versions/milestones' synonym adds slight clarity but no substantive behavioral detail.

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 directly states the function with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description adequately states what it retrieves and its scope. It could explicitly say 'returns all versions', but the plural 'versions' implies a list, which is sufficient for a minimal viable description.

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% (project_id described as 'Project ID or identifier'). The description says 'for a specific project', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'Get versions/milestones for a specific project' uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (versions/milestones), and scopes it to a project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_get_project and no other tool targets versions.

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 when a project's versions/milestones are needed but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentions. Since no sibling tool overlaps this functionality, context is implicit rather than explicit.

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