get_roadmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuine behavior beyond that: the fallback that returns the list of variants when no valid variant is supplied, and the default of the newest catalog year. It does not describe pagination or how a partially-matched program is handled, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the purpose first and the parameter notes after, and the parenthetical example of a roadmap item is compact and informative. The variant sentence is slightly dense and packs two ideas (fallback behavior and variant selection rules) into one clause, costing a bit of readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to sketch the return shape and to explain the variant-selection fallback, which is the key decision point for this tool. It is close to complete for a three-parameter read tool, though it omits what a resolved variant looks like versus the variant list, and says nothing about how it relates to sibling planning tools.

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%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning and it largely does: variant is tied to the student's QR pathway/math placement or ADT status, and catalog_year is defined as the student's year with an example ('Fall 2025') and a "newest" default. Only 'program' is left implicit, which is why this is not a 5.

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 names a specific resource ("The Bulletin's suggested semester-by-semester roadmap") and even illustrates the item shape (course codes or slots like {slot: GE, area: "1A", units: 3}), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like build_plan or get_program_requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives a clear in-tool usage rule: without a valid variant the tool returns the variant choices to pick from, and it hints at how BS CS variants are determined (QR pathway / math placement / ADT). It never says when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as build_plan or get_program_requirements, so guidance is implied rather than comparative.

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