roadmap_progress

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

The description discloses the core behavior: it calculates done vs total for leaf work nodes per segment and overall, with percentages. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately explains the output without contradictions.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information: type of summary, granularity, and metrics. Every part earns its place with no waste.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (existing but not shown), the description covers the essential purpose and logic. It could be improved by defining 'leaf work nodes' or 'top-level segments,' but it is still adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context by specifying the scope (top-level segments and overall) and what is counted (leaf work nodes), which is meaningful beyond the empty schema.

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 it provides a progress summary for top-level segments and overall, counting leaf work nodes done vs total with percentages. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on adding, updating, or viewing the roadmap itself.

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 implies usage for obtaining progress summaries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as roadmap_view for full details. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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