gh_list_milestones

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It also includes the 'via the GitHub API' redundancy, which doesn't enhance transparency. With annotations covering safety, this is a minimal pass.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and one sentence for state parameter values. There is no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the purpose before parameter details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 is a simple list operation with a read-only annotation and an output schema that likely outlines return fields. The description covers the primary purpose and state filtering. The only gap is the lack of documentation for 'per_page', but given the output schema and the tool's simplicity, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description explains the 'state' parameter by listing valid values and default, which adds value beyond the schema (coverage 0%). However, it does not explain 'per_page' or the obvious but still undocumented 'owner' and 'repo' parameters. Since the schema has no descriptions, the description only partially compensates for the low 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'milestones in a repository', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gh_list_issues or gh_list_prs 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Unlike the high-caliber example, there is no mention of alternative tools for different resource types or filtering use cases. The usage is only implied by the resource name, which is not enough for explicit decision-making.

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