roadmap_diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific context about what is checked (roadmap.sh, GitHub, cache/state), which goes beyond the annotation flags, though it does not detail output format or potential side effects beyond 'report status'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the main action ('Check connectivity') and no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no parameters and a simple diagnostic purpose, the description covers essential invocation intent. It reports connectivity and cache/state status, though it leaves the exact nature of 'status' unspecified. Annotations cover read-only safety, so completeness is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the parameter space. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description needs no further param detail and adds none, which is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Check connectivity to roadmap.sh and GitHub, and report cache/state status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roadmap_list or roadmap_get, which fetch data rather than diagnose connectivity.

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 implies a diagnostic purpose (checking connectivity and cache/state) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage guidance is therefore only implied, not articulated.

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