rush_containerfile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is non-rewriting and mentions a specific edge-case behavior: missing hadolint results in status='skipped'. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the most important behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 one-parameter, read-only checking tool with an output schema, this description covers the key selection and behavior information: what it checks, that it doesn't rewrite, and a special status outcome. It is slightly thin on what exactly 'check' entails, but the output schema likely fills that 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented path parameter. It indirectly implies that 'path' points to container files, but it never explicitly states whether the path should be a file or directory, or what formats are accepted. The semantic contribution is present but minimal.

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 clear verb and resource: checking container files without rewriting. It is specific enough to distinguish this from siblings like rush_markdown or rush_yaml, though it doesn't name an alternative or use a more precise verb like 'lint'.

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 phrase 'check container files without rewriting' implies the intended use case: read-only validation of container files. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like rush_lint, nor any exclusion criteria.

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