roadmap_archive

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

The description fully discloses side effects: mutates git index by moving tracked files, never commits or pushes, regenerates dashboard. Without annotations, this provides comprehensive behavioral insight for the agent.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core action, then provide usage guidance and behavioral notes. No wasteful information; each 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?

The description covers conditions, actions, effects, and usage context. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema).

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the operation context, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero parameters.

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 defines the tool's action: archiving roadmaps that meet specific conditions (count_open == 0 and touched on current branch) using git mv, migrating references, and regenerating the dashboard. It distinguishes from sibling tools like roadmap_progress by specifying its unique 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 explicitly states 'Use as the PR-gate sweep before opening a pull request,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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