linear_getMilestones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read ('Get'), implying no side effects. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple listing tool, this is sufficient. Sorting behavior is covered by the schema's enum, so the description is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the purpose and key filters, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple with 6 optional parameters, the description lacks details about the return value (e.g., that it returns a list of milestones, pagination behavior). With no output schema, more context about the output would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the filters (project, team, status) but does not mention includeArchived, limit, or orderBy. The schema descriptions are already clear, so the marginal benefit is small.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('project milestones from Linear'), and the key features ('PM-friendly filters for project, team, and milestone status'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource type.

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 the available filters, implying when to use the tool (e.g., when needing milestones filtered by project, team, or status). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like linear_getMilestoneById for a single milestone, which would be helpful given the many siblings.

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