rc_illuminate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the prerequisite (Phase 1), the return of a report and gate prompt, and the post-approval phase transition. It lacks details on side effects or error handling, but the key stateful behavior is revealed, warranting a 4 rather than a 3.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the phase and provides a step-by-step sequence. Every sentence contributes necessary workflow information with no filler, making it 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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (report + gate prompt), the required input (user answers), the prerequisite, and the next action (rc_gate). This fully contextualizes the tool within the larger pipeline, leaving no critical gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that discovery_answers come from rc_start, providing source context and clarifying when to pass them, which goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as Phase 1 (Illuminate), specifies the verb 'Generates an Illuminate Report' summarizing problem space, users, and constraints, and distinguishes it from sibling phase tools by explicitly sequencing the workflow relative to rc_start and rc_gate.

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?

Explicitly states to call after rc_start, requires Phase 1, instructs to use rc_gate for approval, and describes the transition to Phase 2. This provides clear when-to-use and next-step guidance, effectively differentiating from alternatives.

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