ralph.generate_phase1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal file creation, conditional seeding ('if missing'), the normalization flow via ralph.write_prd, and the default config path. However, it does not specify whether existing phase1.sh or prompt files are overwritten, and the sentence 'Configure phase1.sourcePlan in .ralph/config.json' is ambiguous between a tool side effect and a user instruction.

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 three dense, efficiently ordered sentences: artifacts created, script execution, config default, and next step. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For an orchestration/setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the created files, the shell command to execute, the config mechanism, and the successor tool. The only notable gaps are overwrite behavior and what a successful invocation returns, which are relatively minor for a setup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description mostly restates the sourcePlan semantics and the default path, adding no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description adds little beyond that.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set up Phase 1') and enumerates concrete artifacts from the action: creates .ralph/phase1.sh and .ralph/phase1-prd-prompt.md, and seeds a draft project-plan.md. It also implicitly differentiates from ralph.generate_phase2 by pointing to it as the next step, though it does not contrast against other siblings like ralph.write_prd or ralph.write_plan.

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 gives clear operational guidance: run bash .ralph/phase1.sh to normalize the plan into the PRD, and run ralph.generate_phase2 when the PRD is ready. This provides a sequential usage context and a clear next action. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternative tools, but the phase workflow is evident enough.

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