redmine_search

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 disclosing behavior. The description merely says 'Search' without noting that the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what the default search scope is, or what the response format looks like. For a complex search tool, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Search Redmine for issues, wiki pages, and more'. It contains no filler and immediately communicates the core action. It is concise and well-structured, earning the maximum score.

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's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It omits critical context such as default behaviors (whether all content types are searched by default), pagination usage, how boolean flags interact, and what the returned results contain. This description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already provides clear parameter semantics. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'issues, wiki pages' but does not elaborate on any parameter behavior or relationships beyond what the schema states. 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search Redmine for issues, wiki pages, and more'. It uses an action verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling CRUD tools (e.g., create/delete operations). However, the phrase 'and more' is vague and does not enumerate all searchable content types, slightly reducing precision.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this search tool versus the many list/get tools in the sibling set. The description implies a search use case but doesn't state when it's preferable to redmine_list_issues or redmine_list_projects, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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