add_roadmap_milestone

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'creates a structured entry' but does not disclose whether it appends, overwrites, or updates existing entries. No mention of file locking, error handling, or side effects.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists key fields. No redundancy or filler. Efficient and to the point.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on ordering, formatting conventions, or interaction with the existing file. It is adequate but not thorough for a file-modifying tool.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description merely repeats field names (title, description, target date, deliverables) without adding new semantic nuance or usage examples beyond the schema.

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 ('Adds') and the resource ('milestone or phase to ROADMAP.md'). It specifies the content it creates (title, description, target date, deliverables), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_roadmap' which likely manages the entire file.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., the existence of ROADMAP.md) or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'create_or_update_roadmap' instead).

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