Get path

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape — milestones carry a pace classification with the literal enum values ahead/on_pace/behind, each with steps, plus a current_milestone_id marker. Since there is no output schema, this is the only place that information exists.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary content (what is returned) is front-loaded before the secondary note about current_milestone_id.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content: milestones, their pace state, their steps, and which milestone is actionable. It stops short of describing the wider milestone fields (dates, ids, completion) or step structure, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 names a concrete resource and its contents: milestones with pace values (ahead/on_pace/behind) and their steps. It is clear what comes back, but it never differentiates from close siblings like get_plan, get_goal, get_now, or next_steps, so an agent still has to guess which of these to reach for.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this tool should be preferred over get_plan or next_steps, and no prerequisites. The clause about current_milestone_id explains how to read the output rather than when to call the tool.

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