redmine_request

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

The description explains that the tool makes HTTP requests and returns a YAML string with status code, body, and error message. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects, or rate limits. The behavior is partially described.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, and the one-line summary is front-loaded. It is concise and covers all parameters without unnecessary verbosity.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter explanations and return format. However, it lacks broader contextual notes like error handling or rate limits, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in detail: path (endpoint), method (default get), data (for POST/PUT), params (query params), mcp_filter (for MCP filtering). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states it makes a request to the Redmine API, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_download, redmine_upload, etc., which are specialized operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this generic request tool versus the specialized sibling tools (e.g., redmine_paths_info for path discovery, redmine_download for downloads). The description does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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