rc_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool runs automated checks, catches problems before code, requires no user input, and presents findings with severity ratings. However, it does not state whether the tool modifies project state or is read-only, which is a minor gap for a quality gate.

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 phase and purpose, and structured logically. The sentence 'This catches problems BEFORE code is written - saving significant rework' is beneficial but slightly contributes to length; still, almost all content earns its place.

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 simple input schema (single param) and no output schema, the description provides good pipeline context: phase, preconditions, checks, output (findings with severity), and next step. It lacks an explicit statement about return structure or side effects, but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'project_path' is described as 'Absolute path to the project directory'. The description adds no parameter-specific information, 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 explicitly labels the tool as 'Phase 5 (Validate)' and 'QUALITY GATE before building', then enumerates four specific automated checks (anti-pattern scan, token budget audit, scope drift detection, UX quality assessment). This clearly distinguishes it from building/synthesis tools like rc_forge_task.

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 clear sequencing: 'Prerequisites: Phase 4 gate approved' and 'After gate approval: moves to Phase 6 (Forge) - begin building with rc_forge_task'. Also states 'No user input needed', which handles the interaction model explicitly.

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