Github List Milestones

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful return-semantics detail about issue counts, but does not disclose pagination or state behavior; these are covered by the schema, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and the workflow instruction kept to one line. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only list with an output schema and annotated safety profile, the description plus schema covers the essentials. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools, but that is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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?

Only 40% of parameters have schema descriptions; repo_owner, repo_name, and page are otherwise undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining parameter roles beyond the phrase 'a repository's', and it does not clarify paging or state filtering.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists a repository's milestones') and adds a distinctive output detail ('with the count of issues in each'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like github_create_milestone, github_update_milestone, and github_set_issue_milestone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance; the intended use is implied by the listing verb. The 'Workflow and conventions' line points to a skill rather than explaining when this tool is preferred over other issue/milestone tools.

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