get_roadmap

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying default filtering behavior (e.g., states empty = all unresolved, projects empty = all accessible), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand default behavior without invoking the tool.

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 and well-structured. The one-line purpose statement is immediately followed by a clear parameter list in a consistent format. Every sentence and field earns its place without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, return format does not need explanation. All parameters are documented with defaults and empty-value behaviors, and the filtering scope is clear. For a read-only roadmap tool with full parameter coverage, nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0%, but the description's Args block fully compensates by explaining every parameter: projects, types, states, max_per_project, and instance, including defaults and the meaning of empty values. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding of each input.

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 a specific verb ('view') and resource ('cross-project roadmap'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_dashboard or search_issues by emphasizing the roadmap view and filtering by type and state. This gives an agent a precise idea of what the tool does.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description ('cross-project roadmap view'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or alternative tool references provided. The agent must infer when a roadmap is needed.

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