rc_compound

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it cross-references the Phase 7 integration report, produces a ship checklist and go/no-go assessment, and requires Phase 7 approval. It does not explicitly state whether it writes state, but the assessment-oriented language makes side effects unlikely.

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?

Three sentences pack all essential details—phase, purpose, prerequisites, and next step—without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the phase identifier and immediately communicates the tool's role.

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?

The description is self-contained: it explains inputs (via schema), outputs ('ship checklist and go/no-go assessment'), dependencies on Phase 7, and the successor tool. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys what the tool produces.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by framing code_context as 'included in the hardening assessment' and tying the tool to Phase 7 output, which helps clarify parameter purpose 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 states the tool's function: 'Assesses production readiness' and enumerates specific areas (NFR compliance, error handling, observability, performance, security hardening, deployment configuration). It further distinguishes itself as 'Phase 8 (Compound). Final phase before ship' and references postrc_scan as a subsequent step.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Prerequisites: Phase 7 gate approved' and 'After gate approval: pipeline complete, proceed to postrc_scan for security validation.' This establishes sequencing relative to sibling phases and gives a clear pointer to the next tool.

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