prc_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect of creating a directory and initializing state, and it clearly instructs the agent to call prc_classify next. It also resolves ambiguity about sequencing by forbidding skipping directly to prc_run_stage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most important positioning ('FIRST STEP'), and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: when to call, what it does, prerequisites, and next-step constraints.

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 simple initialization tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the workflow context: the entry-point role, required state creation, prerequisites, and mandatory follow-up. Given the low complexity and rich schema, no additional details are necessary.

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% and each parameter (brief, project_name, project_path) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add further detail about parameter formats or values, but it does align the 'product idea' context with the brief parameter. This meets the baseline expected from high schema coverage.

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 identifies prc_start as the 'FIRST STEP of Pre-RC research' with a specific verb+resource: creates the pre-rc-research/ directory and initializes project state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the entry point and explicitly names the next step (prc_classify).

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call when the user describes a product idea and you want deep research before building.' It also states prerequisites ('none - this is the entry point') and warns against skipping to prc_run_stage before classifying, giving clear workflow context.

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