redmine_list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It identifies the tool as 'Alpha' (experimental) and states it returns file metadata, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. The lack of explicit read-only or non-destructive hint is a gap, but the operation type is clear from 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 one sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part serves to convey the core functionality and output.

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 simplicity of the tool (listing files), the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description should have explained pagination, return format, or error states. It falls short of being fully informative for an AI agent.

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 has 3 parameters (project_id, limit, offset) with 0% documentation coverage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 'list files in a project', indirectly suggesting project_id identifies the project, but fails to explain limit, offset, or acceptable values. This leaves the agent with insufficient detail to select parameters correctly.

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 lists all files in a Redmine project, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'files'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_list_issues by focusing on files, and mentions the return metadata (name, size, type, author, download URL).

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 retrieving project files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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