redmine_list_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination ('Returns paginated results') but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences: one sets purpose and return fields, the other explains the key parameter behavior. No filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return fields, and key parameter usage. It does not specify return format or pagination details, but the schema provides limit/offset bounds. Adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the project_id parameter's effect ('scope results to a single project') and implies limit/offset through 'paginated results'. This adds some value beyond the schema, but individual parameter details are sparse.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Redmine news articles', and distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_list_issues or redmine_list_files by specifying the content (news articles).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the project_id parameter ('Omit project_id to fetch news across all projects, or provide it to scope results to a single project'). Does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools makes it sufficiently clear.

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