redmine_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions pagination support but does not disclose that the tool is read-only, required authentication, rate limits, or what happens with large datasets. The behavioral insights are minimal.

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 with a stability marker at the start. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks sufficient detail for a 3-parameter tool. Conciseness is good but at the expense of completeness.

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 has 3 parameters with no output schema. The description does not explain return value structure, possible responses, or how pagination works. Given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is incomplete for effective agent use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at pagination (related to limit and offset) but provides no explanation for the 'include' parameter, which is non-trivial. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 lists projects with pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'projects' are unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_get_project (single project) or redmine_create_project, but the name and context partially achieve this.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redmine_get_project or redmine_search. The description lacks explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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