redmine_paths_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For an info tool, a read-only hint would be expected, but it is absent. The description only states the output format.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence and an Args/Returns section that organizes input and output. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the example could be more precise.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, simple string output) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers input and output. However, it lacks contextual details like error handling or performance implications.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'path_templates' parameter as a list of path templates with an example. However, it does not specify item types or constraints beyond the example, leaving some ambiguity.

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's function: getting full path information including MCP capabilities. It specifies that it returns Redmine API specifications and MCP server capabilities. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like redmine_paths_list, which may list available paths.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redmine_paths_list) or any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios. It only describes what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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