seo_list_roadmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the default return is short detail and describes what each verbosity level returns (e.g., 'priority, primaryKeywords, clusterId' for medium). It does not mention pagination, sorting, or scope behavior (e.g., brand filtering), but it does disclose the primary behavioral trait — the variable output shape — and points to a sibling for full detail, so it is fairly transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then immediately covers return formats and the alternative single-item tool. Every sentence earns its place — no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the default behavior, the exact fields returned at each detail level, and how to access full detail for a single item. It effectively compensates for the lack of an output schema and integrates well with the sibling landscape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete field names for the detail parameter (id, title, status for short; priority, primaryKeywords, clusterId for medium) beyond the schema's generic 'key summary fields + counts'. This enhances parameter understanding despite the schema's already strong descriptions.

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 starts with 'List roadmap items (blog topics queued for writing)' — a specific verb ('List') and resource ('roadmap items') with a clarifying parenthetical. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing return formats and explicitly naming seo_roadmap_get for single-item detail, making its role 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it explains the default 'short' detail and when to switch to 'medium' or 'full', and explicitly directs users to 'Call seo_roadmap_get with detail="full" for a single item's complete detail.' This is strong usage differentiation.

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