Milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true; the description adds 'with progress statistics' which is a helpful behavioral output trait. No contradictions, but additional details (e.g., pagination behavior) are not covered, and the bar is lower due to annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and scope, with no unnecessary information. Every word 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?

The description is adequate for a list tool with a rich schema and annotations, but it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior in depth. The mention of 'progress statistics' provides some output context, but overall completeness is basic.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add meaning beyond those schema descriptions; it only mentions progress statistics which is an output trait, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'List', the resource 'milestones', the scope 'for a project or group', and adds 'with progress statistics (total/closed issue counts)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_iterations or get_issues.

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 when to use the tool (to list milestones with statistics) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools exist (e.g., list_iterations) but no differentiation criteria are given.

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