get_version_milestone_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it returns a list, implying read-only behavior, but provides no details about data scope, pagination, ordering, or potential errors. It doesn't explicitly confirm the operation is safe or disclose any side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, and the structure is appropriate for its simplicity.

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 has no output schema and minimal description, yet it fails to explain what versions/milestones are, how they are scoped (despite having project parameters), or what the return data looks like. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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%, meaning both parameters are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (returns list) and resource (versions/milestones), but the phrase 'in the Backlog space' is vague and doesn't specify that the list is scoped to a project via projectId/projectKey. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, but no direct sibling with the same resource exists.

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, nor any mention of the need to supply projectId or projectKey (both optional). It doesn't clearly state that this is the endpoint for retrieving versions/milestones for a specific project as opposed to other list tools.

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