Get Design Roadmap

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the roadmap is structured by phases, each with goals and associated docs, and that it is the intended entry point for design work.

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 focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the roadmap is, then gives actionable usage guidance, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description explains the contents of the roadmap and what the agent should do next. It doesn't describe the exact output format, but that omission is acceptable given the roadmap's clear purpose and the follow-up instruction to fetch phase docs.

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% and the sole parameter, project_type, already has an enum and a description. The description restates the project types, which adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning a phased, expert design roadmap for a specified project type. It names the exact project types and explains that each phase contains goals and knowledge-base docs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_design_doc or audit tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when starting any design project' and instructs the agent to 'fetch phase docs as you reach them.' This gives clear timing guidance, though it does not explicitly name or exclude alternative tools.

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