seo_roadmap_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default return (full raw object) and the exact fields for 'medium' and 'short' detail levels. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or potential side effects (though likely none for a read). The detail-level shape disclosure is valuable but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what it does; the second gives concise, concrete guidance on detail levels. No wasted words. All information is relevant and easy to scan.

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 simple get tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return shapes at each detail level. It covers the main functional aspects. Gaps include error cases and behavior for missing/invalid IDs, but these are minor for a low-risk read operation.

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% and the schema descriptions already explain detail levels, defaults, and itemId source. The description adds minor repetition of the same examples without introducing new meaning. It reinforces the default behavior but does not significantly compensate or expand beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'View a single roadmap item by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_list_roadmap (which lists items) and seo_roadmap_edit/delete (which modify/delete). The 'by ID' scope further clarifies its singular purpose.

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 when to use the tool: to get details of a single roadmap item. It also provides context on detail levels, noting lists default to 'short' and advising to call a get/view tool for medium/full detail. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for bulk listing) or name alternatives beyond implied list behavior.

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