get_milestones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, but it's borderline under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or usage context. For a retrieval tool, this leaves the agent guessing about output format and behavior, making it inadequate for reliable use.

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%, with the parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra help from the description.

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 'Get milestones for a project' clearly states the action (get) and resource (milestones), but it's vague about scope and format—it doesn't specify if it retrieves all milestones, filtered ones, or their details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_milestone' (singular) but not from other list tools like 'get_cases' or 'get_plans' beyond the resource 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_milestone' (for a single milestone) or other retrieval tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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