list_milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are sorted by modification date (newest first). This goes beyond the annotations, though no other side effects are disclosed.

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 sentences long with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds the sorting detail. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high efficiency.

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 simplicity of the tool (list operation with two parameters and no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and sorting order. It could mention the return type (e.g., 'returns an array of milestone objects') but the current phrasing is sufficient for most agents, earning a 4.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (limit has max and default, project is a trimmed string). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it relies on the schema's descriptions. Thus, with high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 milestones') and the resource ('in a Huly project'), with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the sorting order, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_milestone, create_milestone, etc.

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 for listing all milestones in a project but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_milestone for a single milestone). No when-not-to-use or sibling references are given, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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