rc_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (creates rc-method/ directory, project state, begins Phase 1) and return behavior (returns discovery questions). It does not cover error conditions or idempotency, but the key behaviors are disclosed well.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: initial purpose, usage condition, side effects/return value, and post-success action. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 complexity and absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value (discovery questions), the user interaction required, and the follow-up tool call. Minor gaps (e.g., error handling) are acceptable because the pipeline context is clear.

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% for all 3 parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds context about project state but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 starts the RC Method without Pre-RC research, using a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('RC Method'). It explicitly contrasts with rc_import_prerc, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when user wants to go straight to building'), when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use this if Pre-RC was run'), and names the alternative (rc_import_prerc). It also instructs the next step after success (call rc_illuminate).

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