aiworkhub_dashboard_roadmap_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces and extends it: 'Reads the Roadmap and task stores without mutating state' tells the agent which stores are touched and that state is untouched. It also signals the result is 'bounded' and contains joined DAG progress/wave projection, which the annotation does not convey. Missing only detail on the bounding rule and any read cost.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding. The read-only guarantee and the primary purpose are front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows immediately.

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?

With a full input schema, a 100% description coverage, and an output schema present, the description does everything essential: scope, read-only guarantee, and alternative routing. The one loose thread is the unexplained 'bounded' limit behavior, but that is largely covered by the schema's clamp note.

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% — limit (clamped 1..200), offset, status filter, and include_archived are all documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list bounded Roadmap outcomes') plus the enrichment it applies ('joined with task-DAG progress and wave projection'). This immediately separates it from aiworkhub_dashboard_roadmap_detail (single item) and aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_list (different resource).

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?

Explicit 'Use this to browse Roadmap items, status counts, and wave readiness' and then names two alternatives with the conditions that select them (roadmap_detail for one item's full detail/audit events, needfix_list for NeedFix items). Nothing is left to inference.

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