accelo_list_milestones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data-model relationships (milestone→job→company) and the inline-expansion trick, which is useful, but says nothing about return shape, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the parameter names.

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?

Front-loads the identity of the tool before the navigation chain and arguments, with each section earning its place. The relationship walkthrough is slightly tangential to invoking the tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers identity, relationships, and all five parameters well. It does not describe the fields a milestone record returns, which is the main remaining gap, but the essential calling information is present.

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, and it does: it enumerates the filter dict keys, shows the fields expansion syntax ('description,manager(),job()'), states search is over title, and adds non-obvious constraints like page being 0-indexed and limit maxing at 100.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List milestones from Accelo') and adds genuine domain context — milestones are phases within a job, each with a job_id linking to a parent job. The 'list' verb implicitly distinguishes it from accelo_get_milestone and accelo_count_milestones, which are the natural siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance or named alternative; the reader must infer it from the verb. The navigation chain ('get milestone → job_id → get job → against_id') and the 'Use fields="job()" to expand' hint are practical how-to tips rather than selection guidance, so usage is only implied.

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