roadmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It credibly explains that progress is derived from tasks and cannot go stale, and frames the tool as a read-before-work reference, implying no mutation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or address side effects, auth, or rate limits.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the output contents, the second explains why the data is trustworthy, and the third gives usage context against a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main output dimensions, the derivation guarantee, and when to use it, while the output schema handles return details and optional parameters are documented in the schema. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit read-only/side-effect statement, which matters more because no annotations are present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both branch and project already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics; it focuses on output derivation and usage context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: per-target task counts by status, ready-to-dispatch tasks, targets it waits on, and targets waiting on it, in dependency order. It also distinguishes itself from list_ready by clarifying that roadmap is target-centric rather than task-ranking.

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 read this before choosing work and contrasts it with list_ready: list_ready ranks tasks, while this tool shows which target tasks serve and which rows gate releases. This gives the agent clear, actionable routing guidance.

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