Export Roadmap Notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say 'Write', which implies a file mutation, but it does not disclose that the default behavior overwrites an existing ROADMAP_PROGRESS.md, that the file is written to the server's cwd, or any other side effects.

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 focused sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the primary verb and deliverable, then specifies the content requirements. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core purpose well. However, it omits important behavioral context such as the overwrite-by-default behavior and appropriate invocation timing, leaving mild gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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%, so both parameters ('append' and 'output_path') are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific action ('Write'), a specific deliverable ('clean ROADMAP_PROGRESS.md summary'), and the exact content to include ('roadmap position, player stats, and every concept and command covered'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, none of which are export/summary tools.

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 phrase 'summary of the session' implies it should be used after a teaching session to persist progress, but there is no explicit guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives or whether it should be run at the end of every session. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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