get_roadmap_signal

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 enumerates the returned data elements clearly, but it does not disclose behavior in error cases (e.g., invalid analysisId, absent parameters) or any potential side effects. This leaves some ambiguity, though the tool is read-oriented.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists all key outputs without extraneous wording. It is concise and well-structured, earning a high score.

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 tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return values. Minor gaps remain regarding behavior when both parameters are omitted and the exact structure of returned arrays, but the description is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that either analysisId or analysis object serves as the source but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool returns skill arrays (verified/self-reported/partial/missing), priority gap, and a suggested next task from a prior analysis. It specifies the source as an analysisId or analysis object, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_evidence_profile that likely create the analysis.

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 usage on a prior analysis, referencing 'a prior analysisId or analysis object,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The prerequisite of an existing analysis is implied but not detailed.

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