linear_getMilestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context—the 'PM-friendly filters' is a minor feature note rather than a behavioral disclosure. The bar is lower due to annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource, then immediately states the key value-add (filters). There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema (per context signals), which covers return values. Parameters are fully described in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description lacks an explicit note about default exclusion of archived items (though includeArchived implies it), but this is a minor gap. The tool is well-specified for its simplicity.

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 all six parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'filters for project, team, and milestone status' loosely maps to projectId, teamId, and status parameters, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Get' and the resource 'project milestones from Linear', and highlights the key filtering capability with 'PM-friendly filters for project, team, and milestone status'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent and distinguishes it from the sibling getMilestoneById which fetches a single milestone.

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 the tool is for listing milestones with filters, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need a single milestone, use getMilestoneById). The guidance is inferred from the sibling list, but not explicitly stated in the description.

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