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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the project/group scope, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination, filtering, or response shape. It does not contradict annotations, and the annotation coverage lowers the burden, but richer behavioral notes would be expected.

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 extremely short ('Milestones of a project or group.'), which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It is not tautological, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential context, making it more under-specified than genuinely concise.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and limited schema coverage, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns, how pagination works, or typical use cases. It only states the scope, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 63%, leaving parameters like state, search, and group_id undocumented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, failing to compensate for these gaps. The existing schema descriptions for page, limit, per_page, all_pages, and project_id are helpful, but the overall parameter understanding is incomplete.

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 identifies the resource (milestones) and its scope (project or group), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue or merge request lists. However, it lacks an explicit verb; the title supplies 'list'. Overall purpose is clear but could be more explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like needing a project_id or group_id. The description is purely definitional and offers no context for selection.

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