Vaiz MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination, sorting, default ordering, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all milestones') and adds qualifying details ('in the current space, optionally filtered by board or project'). There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, pagination, and parameter semantics. For a list tool with filtering options, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional filtering by 'board or project', which maps to the two parameters (boardId, projectId), but doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or how filtering works (e.g., AND/OR logic). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming the parameters.

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' and resource 'milestones' with scope 'in the current space', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_milestone' (singular fetch) and 'create_milestone' (write operation), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated from other list tools like 'list_boards' or 'list_projects'.

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 by mentioning optional filtering by board or project, suggesting when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_milestone' for a single milestone or 'search' for broader queries. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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