roadmap_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the tool shows a hierarchical view with rollup and optional scoping, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The verb 'Show' suggests read-only, but not stated explicitly.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and structure immediately, and every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key features: hierarchy, rollup, sorting, and optional filtering. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 input schema has one parameter 'segment' with 0% coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'Optionally scope to a segment,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and filling the gap left by the 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 the tool shows a hierarchical roadmap with specific levels (project > segment > phase > epic > task) and includes rollup and sorting by priority. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like roadmap_add_node and roadmap_progress, which modify the roadmap.

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 this tool is for viewing the roadmap, not modifying it, which differentiates it from siblings like roadmap_update. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, but the context of siblings and the verb 'Show' provide adequate guidance.

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