product_roadmap_plan

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

The description adds a small behavioral detail beyond the annotations by mentioning routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose the destructive behavior implied by destructiveHint=true or any side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The Args section is clearly structured, though it is terse to the point of being underinformative.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the tool's purpose is left opaque. Given the complexity of a domain-agent action with two open-ended string parameters, the description does not sufficiently explain what roadmap_plan does, what inputs should contain, or what kind of result to expect.

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 provides no parameter descriptions, so the description carries the burden. It minimally clarifies that message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string, but it does not explain expected shapes, examples, or how the two parameters interact.

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 provides a verb and resource name ('Run the product domain agent action roadmap_plan'), but it never says what roadmap planning actually accomplishes. It is essentially a wrapper around the tool's name and does not distinguish it from the many other domain-agent dispatch tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, and no examples. The routing/scope sentence explains mechanism, not usage, so an agent gets no help choosing this tool.

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