List Redmine Issue Statuses

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature via readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns all available statuses and specifies the return shape as 'List of status names and IDs.'

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 compact: a purpose sentence, a usage sentence, and a returns line. Every sentence adds value and the main action is front-loaded with no filler.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides purpose, usage context, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select or invoke this tool is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is complete and there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all available issue statuses in Redmine.' It also gives the functional purpose, 'find status IDs for filtering or updating issues,' which clearly differentiates it from other list_* sibling 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 gives clear context by saying this is used to find status IDs for filtering or updating issues. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a simple lookup with no close sibling this is sufficient.

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