postrc_generate_observability_spec

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

Annotations declare idempotent and non-destructive; description adds workflow context (pre-flight, feeds into rc_architect) and output contents. No contradictions, and given annotations cover safety profile, the added behavior context earns a 4.

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 sentences, all informative, front-loaded with the PRE-FLIGHT label and purpose. No filler.

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?

Tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and description covers why, when, what, and where output goes. The lack of output schema is compensated by describing the document contents. Complete for the complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning PRD input, which is already in schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Generates an observability requirements document from the PRD' and enumerates contents (error tracking, analytics events, SLOs, dashboards, alerting). It distinguishes itself by labeling 'PRE-FLIGHT tool' and noting it feeds into rc_architect, separating it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit timing ('run BEFORE RC Method build phase, ideally after rc_define') and context ('PRE-FLIGHT tool'). Notes optionality and recommendation, but does not name alternatives or exclusions, so slightly below perfect.

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