List Redmine Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the results are limited to accessible projects and returns a table, which is useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure; no contradictions exist.

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 clearly organized into purpose, arguments, return, and user preferences. However, the user-preference paragraph is lengthy and somewhat tangential to the tool's core operation, adding bulk to an otherwise simple list tool.

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 description provides a return type ('Table of projects'), pagination details, and accepted associations. It does not explicitly contrast with redmine_get_project, but for a simple read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters, the essentials are present.

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 100%, and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minor clarity by noting comma-separated associations and labeling limit/offset as pagination, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all accessible projects in Redmine.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and implies scope ('accessible') but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like redmine_get_project or other list_* tools.

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 provides context that this tool lists all accessible projects and mentions pagination, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as redmine_get_project. The included user-preference workflow is helpful for context but is not a direct tool-selection guideline.

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