feature_roadmap

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, which already inform the agent this is a safe, deterministic generation tool. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't explain what 'Generate' means operationally (e.g., creates a new artifact, returns structured data), nor does it mention any limitations, quality of output, or processing characteristics. With annotations covering safety aspects, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 reasonably concise with a keyword list followed by the core function. However, the keyword list could be considered redundant since 'roadmap' already appears in both the tool name and core description. The structure is front-loaded with relevant terms, but the second part ('Generate development roadmap') is somewhat generic and could be more specific.

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 this is a generation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and good annotation coverage for safety aspects, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's domain but lacks details about what exactly gets generated, the format of output, quality considerations, or how it differs from related planning tools. The annotations handle safety profiling, but the description should do more to explain the tool's behavior and output characteristics.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (including enums for timeframe and approach). The description provides no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of feature lists, or clarify the meaning of 'custom' timeframe or development approaches. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool generates a development roadmap, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Generate development roadmap' entails - does it create a visual timeline, a text plan, or something else? The keyword list at the beginning (로드맵|일정|계획표|roadmap|timeline|project plan|development schedule) suggests multiple interpretations but doesn't clarify the specific output format or nature of the generation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like 'format_as_plan', 'generate_prd', and 'create_user_stories' might be related to planning/documentation, the description doesn't differentiate this roadmap tool from them or explain its specific use case context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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