Get Milestone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error cases, authentication, response shape) beyond the annotation-covered traits. Neutral, as no contradiction exists.

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?

One short sentence with no padding. Every word is essential; it fully captures the action, resource, and scope. This is ideal conciseness for a simple get operation.

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 simple single-resource fetch, the description combined with rich annotations and complete schema coverage is largely sufficient. It lacks an explicit mention of the return value, but that is implied by 'Get'. The verbosity parameter effects are covered in the schema, so no critical gap exists. A slightly higher score would have required explicit mention of the response format or when to use minimal vs full verbosity.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting. The verbosity parameter's semantics are fully explained in the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('milestone') with a clear scope ('by id'). It distinguishes from siblings like milestone_list (plural) and milestone_stats by explicitly targeting a single resource by identifier.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., milestone_list, milestone_stats). It does not state prerequisites such as requiring a valid id, nor does it mention the verbosity parameter's role in tailoring responses. The usage context is only implied.

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