milestones

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the exact shape of the report (status buckets, counted members, initiatives and included milestones, unconfirmed external members, git-history-derived reach dates), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits cost/performance or auth notes, but the return-content disclosure is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence handles the parameter/scope rule. The first sentence is dense with semicolon-separated payload items, but every clause describes a distinct piece of returned data rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so in detail. Combined with the single optional parameter being fully explained, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool, with only cross-tool routing guidance missing.

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 carries the burden and does so: it explains that `milestone` is a slug, that omitting it returns every milestone, and that supplying it narrows the result to one milestone plus its members. This meaningfully exceeds the bare `{"type": "string"}` 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 defines the resource precisely (a milestone = a doc with `milestone: <slug>` front-matter) and enumerates exactly what is reported: reached status, done-vs-counted-members, remaining work, unconfirmed externals, and git-derived reach date. The verb is only implicit (it reads as a listing/report tool), but an agent knows what it will get back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like `report` or `graph`.

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?

It gives clear parameter-level guidance: pass `milestone` (a slug) for a single milestone with its members, omit it for all milestones. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling reporting tools such as `report` or `collections`, and no stated prerequisites.

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