roadmap_progress

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

The description discloses that the tool writes a file inside the project tree, which is useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation. It also explains the dry_run flag to avoid writing, adding transparency about how to perform a non-destructive run. No contradictions with annotations.

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 serving a distinct purpose: main action, usage context, and dry-run behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and a clear write behavior, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to avoid writing via dry_run. It could be slightly more explicit about return values, but overall it is complete for its simplicity.

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 schema already fully documents the `dry_run` parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning by stating it 'compute counts without writing', but this largely paraphrases the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool regenerates `agents/roadmaps-progress.md` from checkbox states of active roadmaps. The verb 'regenerate' and specific file path make the purpose unambiguous, and it differentiates from siblings like `roadmap_archive` by focusing on syncing the dashboard file.

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 to use it 'after landing roadmap work' and contrasts it with a 'shell round-trip', giving clear context on when and why to use the tool. It does not list exclusions or alternative tool names, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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