list_milestones_tool

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. Beyond the verb 'List', it does not mention pagination behavior, default state filter, potential errors, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to rely on the schema for behavior hints.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or extraneous detail. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers the basic action. It does not mention pagination/filtering nuances, though the schema fills that gap. It is adequate but not rich enough to fully support an agent selecting this tool among many project-related siblings without additional reasoning.

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 100%, so all five parameters (project_id, page, state, search, per_page) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'List milestones for a GitLab project.' It identifies the verb (list), resource (milestones), and scope (project). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_milestone_tool and update_milestone_tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 implies the tool is used for retrieving milestones from a GitLab project, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The usage context is derived from the name and description rather than stated directly.

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