rc_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'reads forge artifacts automatically,' requires no user input, and 'generates an integration report with gaps and recommended integration tests.' It also notes the transition to Phase 8. It does not explicitly mention if files are modified, but the read/report behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with 'Phase 7 (Connect)'. Each sentence provides useful information: purpose, process, autonomy, and next step. There is slight redundancy in 'Prerequisites: Phase 6 gate approved' and 'After gate approval,' but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, prerequisites, and next phase. It explains what the tool reviews, that it generates a report, and its automatic behavior. It does not specify report format or return values, but the given context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter project_path is described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little to parameter meaning. The claim 'No user input needed' could confuse because a required parameter exists, but the parameter itself is well-defined. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 specific verb and resource: 'Verifies that all built components integrate correctly.' It further details the scope (API wiring, authentication flows, data model alignment, dependencies) and the output (integration report). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rc_validate by focusing on integration and phase 7.

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 provides clear usage context: it is Phase 7, with prerequisite 'Phase 6 gate approved' and a next step ('moves to Phase 8'). It also states that no user input is needed, implying it should be used after phase 6 in the pipeline. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the phase structure is sufficient for a pipeline tool.

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