list_milestones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'List milestones' without disclosing whether authentication is needed, whether results are paginated, or if there are side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and no error behavior or rate limits are mentioned.

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 that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary words or restatements.

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 has no output schema and relies on the description to convey return values and usage context. The description does not clarify whether project_id is required, how the limit default works, or what response format to expect. For a list operation with multiple optional filters, this lacks completeness.

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 input schema fully describes the three parameters (limit, status, project_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: listing milestones for a project. It distinguishes from sibling list_* tools by specifying the resource 'milestones' and the scoping 'for a project'. It lacks an explicit scope qualifier like 'all' but is unambiguous enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name. With many sibling list_* tools, explicit differentiation would be helpful.

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