generate_roadmap

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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders the burden. It discloses the algorithm (greedy score-per-effort packer using RICE-per-pw ratio), the output structure (markdown with sections, capacity metrics), and parameter semantics, providing comprehensive behavioral 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 paragraph of about 5 sentences. It begins with the main action, then algorithm, output, parameters, and return shape—all concisely stated with no 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers most aspects: algorithm, required/optional inputs, and return structure. It lacks explanation for status and label and does not mention prerequisites or side effects, but is largely complete.

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 description adds meaning to 5 of 7 parameters (capacity_engineer_months, period, okr, method, buffer_pct) by explaining units, defaults, and constraints. However, it omits status and label, which have no schema descriptions (coverage 0%), leaving a gap.

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's purpose: 'Pack the ranked backlog into a quarterly roadmap markdown.' It specifies the verb (pack), resource (ranked backlog), and output format (quarterly roadmap markdown with sections like P0 commitments, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like rank_backlog.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the tool should be used after backlog ranking, but no direct guidance on when not to use or comparison with sibling tools like analyze_roadmap_balance is provided.

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