rc_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only, safe to call anytime' and details the return structure (phase, gate statuses, artifacts, UX score). It adds context about conditional UX score and gate verification, though it doesn't discuss error conditions or format details.

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 slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence example but every sentence adds value: purpose, safety, return values, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the main action and well-structured, though not as terse as the ideal.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains the return values and provides rich usage context. It covers the key decision points and verification workflow, making it complete for a status-check tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Absolute path to the project directory'). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 verb 'Check' and resource 'RC Method progress', and specifies the return values (phase, gate statuses, artifacts, UX score). It also differentiates itself from siblings by framing as an orientation/status tool for RC methods, with use cases like resuming a session or verifying a 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?

The description provides explicit usage contexts: resuming a session, answering 'where are we?', before deciding which rc_ tool to call next, and verifying a gate after rc_gate. It lacks explicit mention of when NOT to use or naming alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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