Teamwork: upcoming milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds useful context by stating that results span projects and default to the next 30 days, but it does not disclose important behaviors such as whether completed milestones are included by default, sorting, or pagination behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the default behavior is stated in the second, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with five optional parameters, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, this description is too lean. It explains the core purpose and default date range but omits parameter semantics, filtering behavior, and return expectations, leaving an agent with meaningful gaps when deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 only 40%, so the description carries significant responsibility for explaining parameters. It adds meaning for the date range and default window, but it does not clarify projectIds, includeCompleted, or pageSize, leaving three parameters effectively undocumented and reducing the tool's usability.

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 identifies the resource as milestones with deadlines over a date range across projects, which is specific and understandable. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_tasks or search.

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 mentions a default date range but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_tasks, my_work, or search. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the name and schema alone.

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