Get the roadmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: output is Markdown, content structure is specified, and non-YYYY-Qn timings sort last. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe behavior for edge cases like an empty or unset roadmap, which would strengthen transparency.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the sorting behavior is a concise, valuable addition. The bilingual duplication adds length but is not wasteful given the likely Japanese/English usage context; overall it remains compact and focused.

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?

For a read-only-style getter with only two optional parameters, the description covers the output format, content components, and ordering rule. There is no output schema, but the description provides enough return-shape detail. It would be more complete with an explicit note about what happens when no roadmap exists, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%: both 'lang' and 'includeCancelled' have clear descriptions in the schema, so the tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters and the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the roadmap as Markdown' and names the exact content components (quarter timeline, work packages by transition state, dependencies, benefits per step). This clearly distinguishes it from visual siblings like diagram_roadmap_gantt and mutation siblings like remove_roadmap_item.

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 makes the tool's intended use clear by enumerating what it returns, so an agent can infer it is for getting a textual/Markdown roadmap overview. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives such as diagram_roadmap_gantt, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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