prc_stress_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is long-running (3 LLM calls), optional, and Pro-tier, and explains its analysis steps (challenges assumptions, fact-checks with web data, evaluates business model). It also states the output verdict types. However, it doesn't explicitly address potential side effects or state mutations, though it's likely an analysis-only tool. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond a simple 'runs analysis'.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: prerequisites, after-success flow, and internal steps. It is structured and front-loaded with the most important information. Minor redundancy with 'stress-test' repeated, but overall efficient.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage order, prerequisites, output, and next steps. It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke correctly, especially with the rich sibling context.

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% for project_path, which is clearly documented as 'Absolute path to the project directory'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but with full schema coverage, the 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 function: stress-testing the product idea after synthesis. It uses specific language ('VC-level devil's advocate analysis') and names the verdict output (GO/NO-GO/CONDITIONAL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like prc_synthesize and rc_import_prerc.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite chain ('Call AFTER prc_synthesize', 'Gate 3 approved', 'prc_synthesize complete') and describes the post-success decision flow (proceed to rc_import_prerc on GO/CONDITIONAL, discuss alternatives on NO-GO). This gives clear when-to-use and alternatives guidance.

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