evolve_apply_roadmap_issue

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

The description states the tool implements an issue, which implies destructive modifications to code, but annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, scoring 1 per evaluation criteria.

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 concise at four sentences, each adding meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and avoids fluff.

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?

While the description covers the main workflow and auto-pick logic, it omits details about failure scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., GitHub access), or behavior when no issues are available. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates missing return value info, but gaps remain.

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 single parameter issue_number has 0% schema description coverage. The description explains the special case of issue_number=0 (auto-pick next issue) but does not explicitly state the effect of non-zero values, leaving ambiguity. This partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 implements a specific GitHub issue via the evolve_applier role. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evolve_apply by specifying roadmap issue auto-picking behavior.

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 explains the auto-pick logic when issue_number=0 and outlines the expected workflow (implement, run suite, open PR). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like evolve_apply, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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