gh_list_milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the state parameter, which is more parameter semantics than behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 efficient—two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the parameter clarification. It could be slightly more informative without bloat, but it's appropriately sized for the information it contains.

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's simplicity, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. With an output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. However, the lack of pagination behavior and any notes on typical usage patterns makes it feel incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 explains only the 'state' parameter (open/closed/all with default), but omits 'owner', 'repo', and 'per_page'. While owner/repo are self-explanatory, 'per_page' (pagination control) is not described, leaving a significant gap.

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'), the resource ('milestones'), and the scope ('in a repository'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_list_issues or gh_list_labels by naming the specific resource type.

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 the basic purpose but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gh_create_milestone). It does not mention exclusions or contrasting conditions, leaving usage context mostly implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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