design_intake

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

The description discloses that the tool saves to rc-method/design/DESIGN-INTAKE.md and returns an alignment score, verdict, and extracted constraints. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only provide boolean hints. It does not explain side effects like idempotency, but that is already covered by annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and pipeline position, then lists captured inputs, then outputs/save behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 34 parameters and no output schema, the description does well to explain return values (alignment score, verdict, constraints) and the destination file. It also mentions the prerequisite (after PRD) and evaluation against ICP expectations. It does not detail every parameter, but the schema covers all of them, so this is adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 34 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes high-level input categories (colors, typography, layout, etc.) but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool runs the Design Intake Assessment, identifies it as the first step after PRD, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it feeds extracted constraints into every downstream design tool. It lists the comprehensive categories it captures, making its scope specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states this is the FIRST step of the Design Intelligence pipeline after PRD, giving clear temporal context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the pipeline positioning implies it should be used before downstream design tools.

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