brain_roadmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: filename-matched selection, most-recently-modified-first ordering, counting open checklist items, and bounded content reads with a default and maximum. It does not mention return format or authentication, but for a read-only scan tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 purpose, and contains no fluff. The second sentence efficiently explains the parameter and its rationale without repetition.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential invocation details: what is scanned, how notes are matched and ordered, what is counted, and the limit behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call correctly.

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?

The schema only provides min/max for the limit parameter, but the description adds meaning by stating the default (6) and explaining that it bounds content reads to prevent stalls from iCloud-hosted vaults. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could clarify exactly what is being limited.

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's function: scanning configured Obsidian vaults for plan/roadmap/next-steps notes and counting open checklist items. It specifies the resource, action, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brain_backlog or brain_architecture.

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?

Usage context is implied by the mention of 'plan/roadmap/next-steps notes,' but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools or provide exclusions. It offers no direct when-to-use guidance.

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