roadmap_archive

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation by detailing that it mutates the git index, moves tracked files, migrates references, and regenerates the dashboard, while explicitly noting it never commits or pushes. This is valuable behavioral context.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the action, the second gives usage context, and the third discloses side effects. It is front-loaded and has no fluff.

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 description covers the main actions and usage context. It does not mention return values or behavior when no roadmaps match, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's mutation focus, the coverage is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter info. The baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds operational semantics but does not need to explain parameters, as none exist.

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 the action (archive every roadmap with count_open == 0 touched on the current branch) and the resource (roadmaps). It also names the specific operations (git mv, migrate references, regenerate dashboard) and differentiates from siblings like roadmap_progress and memory_status.

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 explicitly says 'Use as the PR-gate sweep before opening a pull request,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use or explicit alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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