redmine_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notes that the method can be 'get', 'post', 'put', etc., implying potential write side effects, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or that responses are returned as a YAML string. The phrase 'error message' in the return hints at error handling but is insufficient for a generic tool that could perform destructive writes without explicit warning.

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 a compact docstring with a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information (the purpose) is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 that this is a low-level API client, the description covers the essential aspects: how to call it (path, method, data, params) and what it returns (YAML with status, body, error). However, it omits critical operational context such as authentication handling, rate limits, and any warnings about using methods other than GET. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), the return format is partially covered, but the lack of security or safety notes is a gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It precisely defines each parameter: 'path' as an API endpoint path with an example, 'method' as HTTP method with a default, 'data' as request body for POST/PUT, and 'params' as query parameters. This far exceeds the schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 'Make a request to the Redmine API', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a generic HTTP client for Redmine. It is distinct from the sibling tools (redmine_paths_list, redmine_paths_info, redmine_upload, redmine_download) which are higher-level specific operations. The verb 'make' and resource 'Redmine API' are explicit and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of using it only for endpoints not covered by specific helpers, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The agent would have to infer that this is the low-level fallback, but the description doesn't state that explicitly.

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