Roadmap Drift

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Deterministic, no LLM cost' and 'zeroed when nothing was planned or shipped in the window.' These go beyond the structured annotations and disclose edge-case behavior.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: output definition, determinism/cost, parameter summary, read-only and edge-case behavior, then usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (drift score, counts, median slip days, top slipped/unplanned ships), the empty-window behavior, and the product_id scope. Combined with strong annotations and full schema coverage, it is functionally complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (window has enum and default; product_id has provenance and scope). The description only restates 'window = week | month | quarter (default quarter); optional product_id' without adding new meaning, so schema coverage is 100% and the 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 a specific computation ('Planned vs shipped features over a window') and enumerates concrete output metrics (drift score, counts, median slip days, top lists). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_features as a follow-up tool, and the name/title align with the purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it in planning reviews to check delivery against the roadmap, then open the slipped features with list_features,' providing both a clear when-to-use and a recommended next step. This differentiates it from alternatives and gives actionable context.

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