rc_define

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it produces and saves a PRD, returns PRD content and a gate prompt, instructs the user to present the PRD for review, and notes the workflow transition. This fully informs the agent of side effects and expected actions.

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 compact and front-loaded, using three sentences to convey purpose, prerequisites, workflow, and output. Every sentence adds value without 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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values ('PRD content + gate prompt') and next steps. It lacks details on error conditions or file overwrites, but is sufficient for the tool's complexity and parameter richness.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context by specifying that operator_inputs contains 'feature descriptions, user stories, and requirements' and that the output is an 11-section PRD, enriching the schema's basic definitions.

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: 'Generates a Product Requirements Document from user-provided feature descriptions, user stories, and requirements.' It specifies it is Phase 2 (Define), distinguishes it from siblings like rc_architect (Phase 3), and mentions the output format (11-section PRD) and location (rc-method/prds/).

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 explicit usage context: 'Prerequisites: Phase 1 gate approved' and 'After gate approval: moves to Phase 3 (Architect).' It also suggests considering ux_score and ux_generate for UX-heavy products, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool and related alternatives.

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