anon_get_milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour on top: the project-membership auth requirement, the automatic API-key-based scoping (no projectId), and the date-ascending sort order.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the operation is named first, then constraints. The endpoint line is mildly redundant with the name but still useful for resource identification. Little waste overall.

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 no output schema, the description covers access, scope, and ordering, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not describe the shape of a returned milestone, and the purpose of the from/to filters is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, though the nested from/to properties do carry inline descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds nothing about the from/to date filtering, only clarifying that projectId is intentionally absent, so it only partially compensates.

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 (列出里程碑 / list milestones) and the underlying endpoint, so an agent immediately knows this is a read-list operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like anon_post_milestones and anon_patch_milestones_milestone_id, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It supplies a useful prerequisite (需项目成员身份) and clarifies that the project scope is derived from the API key rather than a parameter, which heads off a likely agent error. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling milestone tools or any exclusions.

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