gitea_list_milestones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List', but fails to mention pagination behavior, possible error states (e.g., repository not found), or whether the operation is idempotent. The claim of listing 'all' milestones contradicts the schema's default state='open' filter without explanation.

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 appropriately brief at one sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata rather than functional documentation, slightly reducing the signal-to-noise ratio. The core message is front-loaded but minimal.

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 0% schema description coverage across 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. A list operation requires documentation of pagination, filtering capabilities (the state parameter), and return structure, none of which are provided.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While 'in a repository' contextually maps to owner/repo parameters, the description provides no guidance on what 'site' represents (URL? instance name?) or valid values for 'state' (open/closed/all). It fails to document the default filtering behavior evident in the schema.

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 action (List) and resource (milestones in a repository). Despite the '[UNIFIED]' metadata noise prefix, the core intent is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling 'gitea_create_milestone'. However, it claims to list 'all' milestones while the schema shows a default state filter of 'open', creating slight ambiguity about scope.

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 provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'gitea_create_milestone' or 'gitea_list_issues'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., repository visibility requirements) or when to filter by state versus retrieve all milestones.

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