rc_init

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the tool detects project state across all domains, routes to the next tool, and defaults to Pre-RC research. The annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the added behavior about state detection and routing is valuable. It does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with 'START HERE' and organized into a clear purpose statement, usage scenarios, trigger phrases, and default behavior. It is concise for the amount of context provided, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes to the agent's ability to understand the tool.

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 as a complex gateway with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what to expect (it tells you exactly which tool to call next). It covers the key user intents and default behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but the combination of description and annotations is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for project_path, brief, and skip_research. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail; it only implies that 'brief' is for new projects and 'skip_research' relates to the default behavior. The schema already carries the semantic weight, so a baseline score 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 identifies rc_init as the 'START HERE' gateway for the RC Engine pipeline, with explicit verb+resource ('Call this when starting a new project, resuming where you left off, or checking project status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the unified entry point and routing tool, not a domain-specific action.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (new project, resume, status check) and even lists trigger phrases. It explains the default behavior for new projects and directs the user to prc_start, effectively naming an alternative. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke rc_init over the many siblings.

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