rc_forge_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses dependency ordering, failure handling ('If a task fails, it is recorded as failed and the next task continues'), and return summary. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 dense yet every sentence adds value: purpose, equivalence, error handling, return, prerequisites, and next steps. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, failure behavior, return format, prerequisites, and subsequent steps. This is a complete guide for an agent in the workflow context.

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% and the only parameter, project_path, has a clear description. The tool description repeats the requirement about containing rc-method/tasks/ but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool's action: 'Builds ALL pending tasks from the approved task list in one call'. It differentiates from sibling rc_forge_task by noting it is equivalent to calling rc_forge_task sequentially, making the scope obvious.

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?

It gives explicit workflow context: 'Phase 6 (Forge) BATCH MODE', prerequisites ('Phase 5 gate approved, task list must exist'), and postconditions ('proceed to rc_gate to approve Phase 6, then rc_connect'). This clearly indicates when to use this vs. single-task execution.

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