taiga_milestones_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action and a filter, without disclosing that this is a read-only operation, mentioning pagination, ordering, or describing the return payload. The agent is left without expectations for side effects or output structure.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and adding only the key filter. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and every word earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is terse: it omits return format, pagination, and any behavioral details. It is barely adequate for a simple list, leaving enough gaps that an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior or response.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema ('Filter by closed status' and 'Project ID'), and the description's 'Filter by project' adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no significant parameter insight beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('milestones/sprints'), making the action clear. It notes an optional filter by project, but does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like taiga_milestones_get or taiga_milestones_stats, though the 'list' verb itself helps.

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 a straightforward listing use case with optional project filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getting a single milestone or viewing stats). It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage context is only implicit.

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