ralph.generate_phase2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well by listing the specific files and directories it creates, stating that Phase 2 reads paths.projectPlan, and adding a prerequisite. It does not state whether existing files would be overwritten, but this is a setup/generation tool where that risk is fairly inferable.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The main setup action and artifact list are front-loaded, while the remaining sentences cover the prerequisite and the follow-up command. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a one-parameter setup tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it names all artifacts, the configuration default, the precondition that prd.md must exist, and the post-setup execution step. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents planFile. The description adds value by explaining that Phase 2 reads paths.projectPlan with a default of .ralph/prd.md and that the referenced plan file must exist first, which helps the agent decide how and when to supply planFile.

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: 'Set up Phase 2' and enumerates the exact artifacts created (.ralph/phase2.sh, config.json, prompt files, specs/, logs/). This clearly identifies it as a Phase 2 scaffolding operation and distinguishes it from generate_phase1 and generate_phase3 by phase and file names.

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?

Gives clear context and sequencing: .ralph/prd.md must exist first, then setup occurs, then bash .ralph/phase2.sh should be run. It does not explicitly compare against sibling generate tools, but the Phase 2 naming and prerequisite make the intended usage obvious.

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