get_roadmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it frames the tool as a read ('Read a project's plan as written'), discloses that results are goals only and exclude counts, and states a concrete output-modifying behavior ('Timestamps (meta) are left out unless include_meta is set'). It stops short of explicitly asserting it is non-mutating or mentioning any permission/access requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then scope, then exclusions, then the meta caveat — every sentence carries information. Slight tightening is possible ('as written', 'the names of its periods' is a touch vague), but there is no padding.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content shape, sibling routing, and the one optional flag. The single material gap is that the required `key` parameter's meaning and source are never explained.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains the effect of include_meta precisely, but never explains what `key` is (presumably a project identifier) or how to obtain it, leaving the required parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a project's plan as written') and enumerates exactly what is returned: yearly overviews (goal, now, target, checklist), quarterly milestones, period names. This is clearly distinguishable from get_status (progress/counts) and list_tasks (tasks), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use it when the user asks for the plan (roadmap, this year's goals, quarter goals)') and then names two alternatives with their conditions ('get_status for progress and the current period, list_tasks for the tasks themselves'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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