Get My Redmine Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the one-time onboarding instructions and the conditional flow that leads to redmine_save_preferences. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but the onboarding behavior is the key non-obvious trait and it is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all informative, with the core read action first and the conditional onboarding flow second. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 zero-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the main behavioral nuance (onboarding vs. normal read). It doesn't specify the exact shape of the preferences payload, but no output schema exists and the description's focus on the flow is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and focuses on the response behavior. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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 reads the user's saved Redmine preferences, a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling redmine_save_preferences by explicitly mentioning the save flow, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call it after a save or whenever the user wants to review preferences. It also explains the onboarding path when nothing is saved, including suggesting candidate projects, asking once, and then calling redmine_save_preferences. This is strong routing guidance.

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