ntd_get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns milestone dates and progress and can filter by four fields, but gives no information about whether it is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the response (e.g., list vs single object, pagination, data format). The minimal description leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence contributes: the first states the core function, the second lists filters. No wasted words. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool has 4 unannotated parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return format, filter combination logic (AND/OR), what 'progress' means, and how it differs from ntd_milestone_completion. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that the four parameters are filters, which is not present in the schema. However, it does not describe expected formats, exact matching behavior, or allowed values (e.g., no enums, no examples). The added value is marginal but non-zero, moving above a baseline of 2.

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 returns milestone dates and progress for matching POs, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('milestone dates and progress'). It lists filter options, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like ntd_list_pos or ntd_get_po, but does not explicitly differentiate from ntd_milestone_completion or ntd_days_to_mda.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool over siblings like ntd_milestone_completion or ntd_get_po. The implied usage is simply 'when you need milestones for POs', but no explicit direction is given.

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