get-milestone-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious trait that the response is 'compact' with essential fields only, plus the field list returned. It omits pagination/size limits, which matters for a 'retrieves all milestones' operation.

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 and return shape are front-loaded, and sections are short and scannable. The three examples partially restate the schema's status enum and cost a few lines, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter derivation, filter behavior, and return fields. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening anything else.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, but the description adds real value with the URL-pattern extraction rule for projectId and worked examples showing the status enum in use. This goes beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get list of milestones for a project') and even defines what milestones are for, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like get-task-list or get-tag-list, though the milestone resource is unique among them.

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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios via examples (all milestones, open only, closed only) and explains how to derive projectId from a Dooray URL, which is genuinely actionable context. It also notes that returned milestone IDs are consumed by create/update-task, but gives no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusions.

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