rc_import_prerc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-approves Phases 1-2, advances to Phase 3, and skips certain steps. However, it does not detail filesystem side effects or whether existing RC files are overwritten, a minor gap for a transformation tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: usage timing, transformation summary, prerequisites, next step, and skipped tools. The description is information-dense without fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 process-step tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: when to call it, prerequisites, what it does, what to do next, and what not to call. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 schema already covers the single parameter (project_path) with 100% coverage, including the note about 'pre-rc-research/ subdirectory'. The description reinforces this prerequisite but adds no new syntax or parameter-level details, so the 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 tool 'converts the 19-section Pre-RC PRD to 11-section RC format', naming the specific resource and transformation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a bridge between Pre-RC and RC phases, and explicitly says it skips rc_start/rc_illuminate/rc_define.

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?

Usage context is explicit: 'Call after prc_synthesize completes and user wants to continue building.' Prerequisites are listed ('pre-rc-research/ directory must exist with Gate 3 approved'), and the next step is given ('call rc_architect'). It also names the tools to skip and why, providing clear when-to-use vs alternatives.

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