list_milestones

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It discloses session fallback behavior and verbosity options, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, pagination details, or full verbosity content. It adds some behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 concise sentences: first stating the core purpose, second covering verbosity and session behavior. No redundant words, effectively front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the 3 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects but omits details like sorting, pagination, or full verbosity members. It is adequate but leaves some operational context ambiguous for a list operation.

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 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It details verbosity with its options and effects, explains session_id fallback, and implies project_id's role. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though project_id is not explicitly described.

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 'Lists milestones (sprints) within a specific project,' specifying the verb (lists), the resource (milestones/sprints), and the scope (within a specific project). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_milestone' (single) and 'list_projects' (different resource).

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 implies usage for listing milestones in a project but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'get_milestone' for a single milestone or 'get_milestone_stats' for statistics. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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