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

The description says 'See what is planned,' implying a purely read-only operation, while the annotations mark readOnlyHint=false. That is a direct contradiction, so the rubric requires a score of 1. The additional detail about electable and skip_reason is valuable, but it cannot override the fundamental inconsistency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds dense but relevant behavioral detail about electability, skip reasons, and the practical effect of skipped items. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to restate return fields. It adds crucial behavioral nuance—electable, skip_reason, and the reassurance that a skipped item ahead doesn't delay yours. It falls just short of complete by not addressing what other status values might be passed or how they change the result.

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 help explain parameters. It clarifies the status default by focusing on 'queued rows' and explains what such rows include, which partially documents the status parameter. However, it does not explicitly explain project_id or enumerate possible status values beyond queued, so compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'See what is planned for a project and in what order.' This immediately tells an agent what list_roadmap does and distinguishes it from mutation-focused siblings like reorder_roadmap, cancel_roadmap_item, and rearm_roadmap_item. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use for viewing planned project work, especially queued items, and the detailed queued-row behavior orients an agent to the default status. However, it never states when not to use this tool or points to alternative tools such as project_status or list_projects, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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