roadmap_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the ordering logic and intended use, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid instance_id, empty roadmap), side effects, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read operation but could be more comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and logic, the second gives usage guidance. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (no output schema, few parameters), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It misses minor details like return format or error scenarios, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (instance_id required, tag optional). It does not explain how tag filtering works or provide any param-related guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the single most important next actionable roadmap item, with clear sorting logic (in-progress first, then planned by priority). This distinguishes it from siblings like roadmap_list and roadmap_add.

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 advises calling at session start to know what to work on next, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools, but the sibling names and context imply differentiation.

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