get-milestone-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: returns a 'compact response with essential fields only', specifies the return format ('array of milestones with id, name, description, dates, and status'), and provides guidance on how to use the output ('Use milestone IDs when creating or updating tasks'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but covers the essential operational behavior well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, note, URL guidance, examples, return format) and appropriately sized. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'URL Pattern Recognition' section could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains the purpose, provides usage examples, describes the return format and fields, and gives context about how the output relates to other operations. The main gap is the lack of explicit information about authentication requirements or error conditions, but overall it's quite comprehensive for this type of 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing examples of parameter usage in different scenarios (all milestones, open only, closed only), but doesn't explain parameter semantics or constraints that aren't already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get list of') and resource ('milestones for a project'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on milestones rather than tasks, projects, or other entities. It explains what milestones are used for ('organize and track tasks by release or sprint'), which helps differentiate from task-related tools.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to retrieve milestones for organizing/tracking tasks) and includes URL pattern recognition guidance for extracting projectId from Dooray URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different needs.

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