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. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or any rate limits. While 'search' implies a read operation, the lack of explicit statement on safety or behavior (especially given the [Alpha] tag indicating potential instability) leaves the agent uncertain. The description fails to convey important behavioral 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 high parameter count (15), the lack of output schema, and missing annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior (offset/limit), default values, or how to combine filters. An agent cannot infer how to correctly invoke this tool for complex queries without additional documentation. The description is far from 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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It only mentions the content types (issues, wiki pages, etc.), which correspond to boolean parameters, but it does not explain the meaning of parameters like q, limit, offset, scope, all_words, titles_only, open_issues, or attachments. The description is insufficient to help an agent understand how to use these parameters effectively.

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 'Search Redmine content across issues, wiki pages, news, documents, changesets, messages, projects, and attachments.' It uses the specific verb 'search' and lists the resources, making it distinct from sibling CRUD tools like redmine_get_issue or redmine_list_issues. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 says 'Use this to discover related work before fetching details.' This provides context on when to use the tool (for discovery) and implicitly suggests using other tools for retrieving specific details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools by name, which would improve the score.

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