rush_cold_start

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful caveat (dynamic -X importtime requires --allow-slow) and states the return shape, but it does not disclose whether the audit mutates anything, can execute code, or requires special permissions. Most of the allow_* flags in the schema are left unexplained.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the action and resource and summarizing the return value in a compact form. However, given the parameter count, the brevity comes at the cost of needed detail, though this is not a structural or verbosity problem.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter descriptions. The description only covers the high-level purpose, one behavioral caveat, and the output shape. It is not enough for an agent to correctly supply required parameters like 'options' or understand the allow_* flag semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only indirectly explains dynamic and allow_slow, and it leaves the required 'options' parameter completely unspecified along with the other eight parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and clearly identifies the resource ('import overhead and cold-start latency at <path>'), which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like rush_benchmark or rush_mem_profile. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a concrete sense of the tool's scope.

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 implies when to use the tool—when investigating import overhead or cold-start latency—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The note about dynamic importtime requiring allow_slow is useful usage guidance but does not address sibling-tool selection.

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