product_roadmap_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or output format. The agent has no clue about the tool's impact.

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 very short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds information, though the second sentence about routing is somewhat technical. It achieves conciseness without being overly terse, but lacks substance.

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 complexity (product roadmap planning, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, output schema present but not explained), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to state the outcome, how to structure valid inputs, or any domain-specific logic. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds basic semantics: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides minimal context beyond the schema's type/default. No constraints, examples, or format details are given, leaving the agent to guess.

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 merely states 'Run the product domain agent action `roadmap_plan`' without explaining what the action does. It is a tautology that restates the tool name. Compared to sibling 'product_roadmap_prioritize', there is no differentiation. The verb 'run' and resource are clear, but the core purpose (planning a roadmap) is not described.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., product_roadmap_prioritize or other product tools). No when-not-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or context provided. The only usage hint is 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope', which is generic and implied for all tools.

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