redmine_paths_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (YAML string) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or that it has no side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but safety is not confirmed. Additionally, there is no mention of error behavior or authorization requirements, which is needed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and uses a clear docstring structure with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and concise, without redundant information. It could be even more compact but is not verbose.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and a description that explains the return type (YAML string). For a single-parameter introspection tool, it covers the essentials. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to siblings (e.g., redmine_request) and does not explain the relationship between path templates and actual paths, which could be important for correct invocation. It is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. It does so by specifying that path_templates is a 'List of path templates' and provides clear examples (['/issues.json', '/projects.json']). This gives the agent a concrete sense of expected input. However, it does not define what 'path templates' means (e.g., if wildcards are allowed) or clarify constraints, leaving some ambiguity, but overall it is effective.

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: 'Get full path information for given path templates'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('path information'), and the returning YAML string of API specifications distinguishes it from siblings like redmine_request (which makes requests) and redmine_paths_list (which lists paths). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. While one can infer it is for retrieving API specs for path templates, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use this before making a request with redmine_request' or 'Consider redmine_paths_list for available paths.' This leaves the agent to guess.

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