redmine_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the list includes only non-archived projects. The presence of limit and offset parameters is not addressed in the description.

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, concise sentence that fits on one line. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no unnecessary words, and is entirely relevant. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 and the schema fully documents its parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. However, the phrase 'all available' conflicts with the pagination parameters (limit/offset) and the description does not clarify this tension. It also does not provide context about the return format or how to use this tool in conjunction with sibling tools, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit and offset), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 'List all available Redmine projects' clearly states the verb (list), resource (Redmine projects), and scope (all available). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling redmine_get_project, which targets a single project. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_get_project. It does not mention criteria for selecting this tool, exclusions, or any related tools for filtering or searching. There is no explicit usage context beyond the basic action.

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