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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that the tool requires REDMINE_ENABLE_WRITE=true, which indicates a write operation. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or idempotency, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 single, concise sentence. It includes the essential purpose and a critical prerequisite with no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is simple with only two clearly named parameters, and the description covers the core action and a key environment requirement. However, it does not explain what happens after the operation (e.g., return value, error responses), nor does it clarify whether notes are appended or replaced. For a write operation, this leaves some ambiguity.

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 must compensate, but it does not. The parameter names 'id' and 'notes' are somewhat self-explanatory, and the schema provides constraints, but the description adds no explicit meaning about what these parameters represent or how they should be used.

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 with a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('a note/comment to a Redmine issue'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_issue by focusing on adding a note to an existing issue rather than creating a new one.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_issue. It mentions the REDMINE_ENABLE_WRITE requirement but does not explain the context in which this tool should be selected, nor does it state any exclusions or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the write requirement (REDMINE_ENABLE_WRITE=true), which signals a mutating operation. However, it does not explain side effects, return values, or failure modes, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that states both the purpose and the critical prerequisite. It is minimal and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It omits expected return values, error semantics, parameter formatting, and context on how the write flag interacts with functionality, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% for 14 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level information. The agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names like 'project_id' and 'subject', which is insufficient for correct invocation of a complex create operation.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'Redmine issue', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, search_issues, and add_issue_note. The verb+resource structure is precise 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 provides a prerequisite (REDMINE_ENABLE_WRITE=true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and the sibling context, but no when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'get' and lists optional data includes, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then succinctly lists optional additions. Every word contributes to the meaning with no unnecessary fluff.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It briefly mentions include functionality, but lacks any note on error handling or permissions. This is acceptable for a straightforward getter, though not exhaustive.

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 for parameter meaning. It restates the include enum values and clarifies that id is the issue identifier, but it adds little beyond what the schema's enum names already imply. The meaning of each include option (e.g., what 'relations' entails) is not elaborated.

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 a specific action (get) on a specific resource (Redmine issue) identified by id. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like search_issues, which imply searching rather than direct retrieval.

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 conveys clear usage context by specifying retrieval by id and the option to include related data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_issues or define when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not mention sort ordering, pagination, status filtering, or that it returns a list. Without annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 single, clear sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple getter. It does not earn extra points for depth but is not under-specified to the point of tautology.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with no descriptions, the description needs to provide more context. It only explains what the tool does, not how to use the parameters or what to expect in the response. The tool is too complex (5 optional params) for such a minimal description to be fully adequate.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of the 5 parameters. It does not clarify what sort, limit, offset, status_id, or project_id control beyond what the schema's types/defaults already show. The description completely fails to add value for parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get issues assigned to the configured Redmine API user.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues (broader search) and get_issue (specific issue). The wording is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's name.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving issues assigned to the configured user, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search_issues. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is stated, but there is no explicit mention of no side effects, response format, or pagination behavior. It adds some context but not rich detail.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose and scope clearly and efficiently.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and visibility scope. Combined with the schema's min/max/default values, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it lacks explicit return format or pagination guidance.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' or 'offset' parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The input schema provides basic type/default but no explanatory text. The description is of no help for understanding how to use or combine parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'projects', with a clear scope of 'visible to the configured Redmine API user.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all issue-focused, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context by specifying it lists projects visible to the user, implying use when needing to enumerate projects. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use or name alternatives, but since all siblings are issue tools, the usage boundary is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that text filtering is applied client-side to subject and description, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits other important behaviors such as filter combination semantics, default sort, and pagination behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes; no filler.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return format, filter behavior, or default settings, leaving significant ambiguity 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'text' parameter (client-side application to subject and description) and refers vaguely to 'common filters'. The remaining nine parameters (project_id, status_id, tracker_id, etc.) are left without semantic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('Redmine issues'), and indicates the method ('by common filters'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue or get_my_issues.

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 states a clear use case: searching Redmine issues with common filters. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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