evolve_apply_roadmap_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the entire workflow: picking an issue, implementing it, running the suite, opening a PR with 'Closes #N', and calling evolve_mark_roadmap_issue_applied. It is transparent about the sequence of actions, though it does not mention authentication or potential side effects like repository modifications, which are implied.

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: two sentences in the first paragraph stating purpose, and a second paragraph detailing behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complexity (multi-step workflow) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how it selects issues, and the exact steps performed. It is complete for effective use without needing to consult other references.

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 for the single parameter, but the description adds crucial meaning: it explains that issue_number=0 triggers automatic selection of the next open issue with specific priority (roadmap-labeled first, then FIFO). This fully 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 an open GitHub issue via the evolve_applier role, and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on roadmap issues. It uses specific verb 'implement' and resource 'open GitHub issue', and explains the selection priority with issue_number=0.

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 when to use the tool (to implement a GitHub issue) and provides selection logic for issue_number=0. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies differentiation, and the priority rules guide usage.

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