prc_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read-only, safe to call anytime' and lists the specific information returned. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid project_path), but for a status tool this is sufficient and adds strong behavioral context beyond structured data.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant content.

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 read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and its safety characteristics. It leaves little ambiguity for the agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% since the only parameter operation is project_path, which is described as 'Absolute path to the project directory.' The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's verb ('Check') and resource ('Pre-RC research progress'), and it enumerates the exact return contents. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on PRC progress, versus rc_status or postrc_status, and by positioning itself as an orientation tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when resuming a session or when the user asks "where are we?"' and even directs the agent to call it 'BEFORE deciding which prc_ tool to call next if you are unsure of the current state.' This is clear, actionable, and differentiates it from action-oriented siblings.

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