rc_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the automation ('No user input needed - reads PRD artifacts automatically'), output location ('Saved to rc-method/tasks/'), and follow-up action ('Present the task list to user for approval'). It does not detail error conditions or idempotency, but covers the primary behavior thoroughly.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence adds a discrete piece of information: phase, action, output details, automation, approval step, prerequisites, and next phase. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains efficient without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers inputs (PRD and architecture), process (auto-generation), outputs (task list saved to a path), user interaction (present for approval), and workflow position (Phase 4, after Phase 3 gate, moving to Phase 5). An agent receives enough context to invoke and act on the result.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_path) with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project directory'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it mentions reading PRD artifacts and saving tasks, but does not explicitly tie these to project_path. 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 auto-generates a 'sequenced, dependency-ordered task list' from the approved PRD and architecture. It specifies the output format (task IDs, effort, dependencies) and distinguishes itself as 'Phase 4 (Sequence)' within a multi-phase workflow, separating it from sibling tools like rc_architect or rc_validate.

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 clear context: prerequisites ('Phase 3 gate approved'), the action to take after ('Present the task list to user for approval'), and the next phase ('After gate approval: moves to Phase 5 (Validate)'). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use statements, but the phase-based positioning and prerequisites serve as adequate usage guidance.

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