Get Next Roadmap Command

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits clearly. It does disclose the optional side effect ('Optionally advance the step counter') and implies the command is not executed directly ('copy-pasteable'). However, it does not elaborate on other state changes, error conditions (e.g., missing active roadmap), or the nature of the return value beyond 'suggest a command'. Basic transparency is present but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no wordiness. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the brief second sentence covers the optional parameter. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main function and side-effect clearly. It does not mention behavior when no active milestone exists, which is a minor gap, but the description is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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's parameter description ('Advance step_index by one before suggesting.') fully documents the 'advance' parameter. The tool description adds only a synonym ('step counter') without new meaning, so it neither compensates for nor expands upon the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('the next copy-pasteable terminal command for the active roadmap milestone'). It is easy to understand the tool's core purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_teaching_command or verify_quiz_answer, so it lacks overt sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the context ('for the active roadmap milestone') but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools such as run_teaching_command. This leaves the agent to infer usage independently.

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