Generate Roadmap

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: holidays are not subtracted, so computed dates are optimistic. It says nothing about whether the roadmap is persisted, whether the result is deterministic, or what units 'fecha laboral' is expressed in, leaving meaningful gaps for a computation tool.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the caveat second, so nothing is wasted. But this brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than economy: two clauses are simply not enough surface for a five-parameter scheduling tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits any input guidance across five undocumented parameters and offers no context on how the roadmap relates to the buffering/PERT siblings that presumably feed it. For a tool this parameterized, the description is materially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are five parameters, including non-obvious ones like team_availability_pct and daily_effective_hours_per_dev, none of which the description mentions. Only the phrase 'fecha laboral aproximada' loosely gestures at start_date and working-day inputs, which is far short of compensation.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Crea cronograma por fases') plus the key output trait (approximate working date), so an agent knows this produces a phased timeline rather than a risk register or quotation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as generate_action_plan_markdown, which is a real routing risk in this 13-tool family.

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 statement of when this tool should be chosen over generate_action_plan_markdown or the other generation tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. requires buffered hours from apply_buffers first). The only usage-adjacent clause, 'no descuenta feriados', is a caveat on output accuracy, not a when-to-use rule.

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