FogBugz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about filtering by project ID and the purpose of finding target releases, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, this meets the baseline for adding some value.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and optional filter, and the second provides a concrete example. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic use. It explains the purpose, filtering, and provides an example. However, it could benefit from mentioning output format or any limitations, though not strictly required since annotations cover safety.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents the optional project ID parameter. The description mentions filtering by project ID and provides an example, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format details or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('milestones (fix-for versions) in FogBugz'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_categories or list_projects, which would require a 5.

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 provides an example ('list all milestones for project 5 to find the right target release') that implies usage for release planning, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cases or list_my_cases. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.

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