list_milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It does add context by stating that the tool returns milestone IDs for managing work items, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, filtering, or the full response structure. This is consistent with the calibration example where annotations cover safety and the description adds modest value.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by purposeful context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one required parameter, the description covers the main purpose and return-value intent, and the annotations cover safety. However, the unexplained 'params' parameter and lack of output schema mean the response format remains unclear, leaving some gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and the description only indirectly references the project_id parameter ('in a project') without naming it or explaining its type. The optional 'params' object is completely ignored. With no schema documentation, the description needed to compensate but provides only minimal indirect context.

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 opens with 'List all milestones in a project,' a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or retrieve_milestone. It also adds purpose-relevant context by noting that milestone IDs are needed for managing milestone work items.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need all milestones for a given project. It even hints at a downstream use case (managing milestone work items), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as retrieve_milestone for a single milestone, so it falls short of a 5.

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