rc_forge_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool loads ('PRD, architecture, and task context') and what it produces ('implementation guidance'), plus the operational requirement to 'Present each task result to user.' It doesn't explicitly state whether it modifies files, but the generation nature is clear enough; a 4 reflects the useful context without contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential sequencing and follow-up actions. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant phrasing or 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?

Given the tool's role in a multi-phase pipeline and the lack of an output schema, the description is thorough: it covers preconditions, per-task invocation, dependency order, and next steps (rc_gate, postrc_scan). It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing further clarification.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the task_id format and adds the constraint 'valid task_id from the task list,' but this is minor. It does not meaningfully extend the parameter meanings beyond the schema, so a 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 function: 'generates implementation guidance' for a specific task_id, distinguishing it as a per-task Phase 6 (Forge) step. It explicitly contrasts with siblings by saying 'Call once per task' and mentioning alternatives like rc_gate and postrc_scan, eliminating ambiguity.

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 when-to-use and sequencing: 'Call this for EACH task in sequence, respecting dependency order,' with prerequisites 'Phase 5 gate approved, valid task_id from the task list.' It also names follow-up tools (rc_gate, postrc_scan), making alternatives clear.

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