rc_architect

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return value ('architecture document + gate prompt') and the gating prerequisite, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether files are written), required permissions, or what happens if the gate is not approved. This leaves behavioral uncertainty for a pipeline tool.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence establishes the phase and core functions; the second covers input guidance, return value, and prerequisites/next steps. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (architecture document + gate prompt) and situates it in the broader pipeline (Phase 3, previous gate, next phase). It could be more complete by noting failure conditions or what the gate prompt entails, but the core context is covered.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful value by explaining architecture_notes with concrete examples ('use Next.js and Supabase', 'must integrate with Stripe') and clarifying that it carries the user's technical preferences/constraints. project_path is adequately handled by 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 'Phase 3 (Architect)' and specifies its function: defining technical architecture including tech stack, data models, API design, integrations, and infrastructure. This distinguishes it from siblings like rc_define (likely earlier definition) and rc_sequence (next phase), and the 'Phase 3' label provides explicit pipeline context.

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 concrete guidance on what to supply (architecture_notes) with examples, and states prerequisites (Phase 2 gate approved or auto-approved via rc_import_prerc) as well as the follow-on step (Phase 4 Sequence). It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the phase-based sequencing implies when this tool is appropriate.

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