Runn: list milestones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance of projectId scoping and the underlying API endpoint. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (though the schema covers that), output ordering, or response structure, which could be valuable for an agent.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'List milestones', and uses a clear conditional structure to explain the two modes. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, a list operation with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the principal distinction (projectId vs. all projects) and leaves pagination details to the schema. Minor missing context like sorting order prevents a 5.

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 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by showing the API endpoint for the project-scoped call, but it largely restates the projectId behavior already present in the parameter description. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 'List milestones' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes between project-scoped and all-project listing via the projectId parameter. This makes it unambiguous and differentiates from sibling list tools like runn_list_phases or runn_list_people.

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 on when to use the tool: with projectId for a specific project's milestones, without it for all projects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the lack of an alternative milestones-listing sibling, the guidance is sufficient.

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