redmine_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List issues' implies a read-only operation, and 'optional filters' indicates filtering capability, but no additional behavior (pagination, defaults, response format, rate limits) is disclosed. For a simple list tool this is minimally acceptable but not rich.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value and there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It does not explain return values or pagination behavior, but the full schema coverage compensates for parameter semantics. Overall it is a minimum 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%, so the input schema documents all 10 parameters. The description only adds the generic phrase 'optional filters' but does not explain any specific parameter meaning or usage, so no added value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List issues') and notes 'optional filters', making it clear this tool returns multiple issues. It distinguishes itself from siblings like redmine_get_issue (single issue) and mutation tools (create/update/delete).

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 phrase 'with optional filters' implies this is for querying issues with criteria, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over redmine_search or redmine_get_issue. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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