ralph.generate_phase3

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the Phase 3 persona flow, the consensus sign-off, that QA close marks tasks done, and the required input file. It does not detail failure behavior or overwrite semantics, but for a 0-parameter script-setup tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the key artifact, workflow, file outputs, prerequisite, and command with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first phrase.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite, action, artifacts, and how to run it. It does not describe the result of running the script in detail, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already fully documents this, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the script sets up and requires, even though no parameter documentation is needed.

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 states a concrete action ('Set up Phase 3') and identifies the exact artifact (.ralph/phase3.sh) plus the workflow it configures. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like generate_phase1 and generate_phase2 by naming Phase 3-specific deliverables and prompt files.

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 gives a hard prerequisite ('Requires .ralph/fix_plan.md') and the exact invocation command ('Run bash .ralph/phase3.sh'). It does not explicitly contrast with generate_phase1/phase2, but the Phase 3 label and prerequisite provide enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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