roadmap_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format (markdown content and curated links) but reveals no further behavioral details such as authentication or error semantics. Like the get_calls example, annotations lower the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no extraneous content or repetitive wording.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (markdown content and curated links) and how to select the topic. The required slug parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it, and the parenthetical clarifies that nodeId/query are for topic selection within a roadmap. This is adequate, though a mention of slug would make it fully complete.

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%, with each parameter (slug, query, nodeId) already described in the input schema. The description's parenthetical 'by nodeId from the outline, or by query' adds minimal interpretive context but is largely redundant with the schema. No significant new meaning is provided.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'markdown content and curated links for one topic of a roadmap', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like roadmap_get (which likely retrieves full roadmaps) and roadmap_search. It also clarifies topic identification via nodeId or query, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to retrieve a single topic's content) and how to identify the topic ('by nodeId from the outline, or by query'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is sufficient given sibling tool names.

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