rc_autopilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-approval of checkpoints, the important exception (Post-RC ship decision), failure behavior ('stops and reports where it stopped'), and prerequisites. This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: main action, auto-approval behavior, critical exception, failure and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and no redundant wording exists.

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 batch automation tool with one simple parameter, the description covers prerequisites, failure handling, auto-approval exclusions, and usage context. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently sets expectations for what the tool does and when to use it.

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% for the single parameter (project_path already described as 'Absolute path to the project directory'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource ('remaining RC Method steps'), and defines the exact scope ('from the current step through Step 8'). It distinguishes itself from sibling step-by-step tools by describing batch automation and auto-approval.

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 when to use ('when the user wants to fast-track the build pipeline'), provides alternatives ('prefer step-by-step flow' for first-time users), and lists prerequisites ('at least rc_start or rc_import_prerc must have been called').

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