redmine_paths_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. For a zero-parameter read-only list operation there is little to disclose, and the description does disclose the return format (YAML string of path templates), which is the main behavioral trait. It does not contradict any annotations since none 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 reasonably efficient but has redundancy: 'Return a list of available API paths' and 'Retrieves all endpoint paths' say the same thing twice. It also contains a typo ('specfication'). The structure is otherwise front-loaded with the core purpose, and the Returns note is useful.

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 simple zero-parameter enumeration tool this is complete: it states the purpose, the output type, and cross-references the sibling tool for further depth. An output schema exists, so return-value details need no further elaboration. Minor blemishes (typo, mild redundancy) don't materially reduce usefulness.

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?

With zero parameters the description has nothing to document, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description need not elaborate further; its only param-adjacent content (that it takes no input) is implicit in the empty 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+resource: 'Return a list of available API paths from OpenAPI spec.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the enumeration tool, while explicitly noting that redmine_paths_info provides the full spec for a single path. The example ('/issues.json') further grounds what a path template looks like.

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 explicitly names the sibling alternative (redmine_paths_info) and explains when it applies ('to get the full specification for a path'), giving an agent a clear decision point between listing all paths and drilling into one. It stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use directive, so it isn't a 5.

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