prc_synthesize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It warns that the tool is LONG-RUNNING due to multiple LLM calls, specifies post-success actions (present deliverables), and outlines the pipeline sequence. This provides substantial transparency, though it could go further by mentioning potential side effects like file overwrites.

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 a single paragraph with strong front-loading, starting with the step position and condition. Each sentence provides distinct information (deliverables, runtime, optional flag, next step, stopping point), and while it's moderately long, it avoids redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers all relevant aspects: preconditions, deliverables, runtime behavior, optional parameter effect, and follow-up actions. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the workflow.

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 already fully describes both parameters (project_path and include_task_deck) with complete coverage. The description adds only a slight rephrasing of include_task_deck as 'visual task breakdown deck,' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool as the synthesis step that converts persona research into specific deliverables (PRD, HTML deck, task list, DOCX, index). It uses a specific verb ('synthesizes') and distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting it's the final step of Pre-RC after Gate 3.

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 explicitly states the precondition ('Call ONLY after Gate 3 is approved (all 6 stages complete)') and provides the alternative for continuing ('To continue into RC Method, call rc_import_prerc'). It also mentions the natural stopping point, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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