get_roadmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation (roadmap view) with filtering, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-destructive, or any rate limits. The behavioral traits are implied but not fully transparent.

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 efficiently structured with a concise one-sentence summary followed by a clear list of parameters. Each parameter is explained in one line, and the default values are noted. There is no unnecessary text.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals), the description need not explain return values. It covers the 5 input parameters well with defaults and formats. However, it could mention the scope (e.g., 'returns issues from multiple projects') or that it's a read-only operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter's format and default behavior (e.g., 'Comma-separated project shortnames (empty = all accessible)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 starts with 'Cross-project roadmap view filtered by type and state', which clearly states the tool's function (roadmap view) and its key filtering capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues or get_issues which are for detailed issue retrieval.

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 provides usage through parameter defaults and explanations, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_issues). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given. The context of sibling tools suggests this is for high-level planning, but it's not explicitly stated.

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