List milestones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists milestones and returns id and name, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or whether it only returns open milestones. The safety profile (read-only) is not implied.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a one-sentence clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema, the description provides minimal information about return values (id, name). It does not address pagination, filtering, or scope of milestones. However, for a simple list tool with one parameter, it is marginally adequate.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by reiterating that 'project' accepts a name or id, which is already stated in the schema. It does not add new semantic information.

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 'List a project's milestones', specifying the verb (list), resource (milestones), and scope (project's). It also mentions the return fields (id, name), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_milestone or list_cycles.

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 only gives a parameter hint ('project accepts a name or id'), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not or context is given.

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