roadmap_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (rollup, sorting) but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or behavior when the optional segment parameter is omitted. Adequate but lacks some transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every part contributes essential information; no wasted words.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality and parameter. The hierarchical structure and rollup are clearly described, making the tool's purpose and usage fully understandable without needing additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'segment' as an optional scope filter, which adds meaning beyond the schema's empty description. However, it does not specify the expected format or source of segment values, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('Show'), the resource ('hierarchical roadmap'), and the specific hierarchy levels and features (rollup, sorted by priority, optional scope to segment). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'roadmap_add_node', which are for modification.

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 when to use (viewing roadmap) and mentions the optional scoping, but does not explicitly exclude cases or contrast with alternatives. Since this is a straightforward reader tool, the guidance is sufficient but could be clearer for an agent to differentiate from other roadmap tools.

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