roadmap_progress

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

Discloses the side effect of writing a file to the project tree and offers a dry_run option to avoid that. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it omits details about file overwrite behavior or potential errors.

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 efficient sentences covering purpose, usage, and parameter. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema, but the description fails to describe the return value (e.g., what is computed or returned when not dry_run). Also lacks comparison to siblings like `roadmap_archive`. Adequate for a simple tool but with gaps.

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 single parameter (dry_run) is documented in the schema with clear semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond restating the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Regenerate') and the specific resource (`agents/roadmaps-progress.md`). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `roadmap_archive` by focusing on syncing the dashboard from current checkbox states.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use after landing roadmap work') and provides an alternative (dry_run). However, it does not explicitly list sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use, which would improve guidance.

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