rush_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects, network/build/browser allowances, whether imports mutate state, or what the output schema represents beyond a vague hint about --allow-slow.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, though the ambiguity between 'import' and 'run' slightly reduces structural clarity.

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 tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and a non-obvious dual operation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain which input triggers import versus verification, what the allow_* flags control, or how the output schema relates to the operation.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning to 'allow_slow' and loosely touches on a local Pact report ('path'). The other seven parameters, including report_path and all allow_* flags, remain unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a concrete resource ('local Pact report') and actions ('import' or 'run local contract verifications'), so it is more than a tautology. However, it presents two loosely joined operations and does not clearly explain which one happens under which conditions, making the tool's primary function ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use rush_contract versus siblings like rush_test, rush_review, or rush_snapshot. The intended use is only implied by the name and the vague mention of contract verifications, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context.

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