rush_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'import' and 'run verifications', but does not state potential side effects like building, network access, downloading dependencies, or cache writes, even though many parameters (allow_build, allow_network, allow_download, allow_cache_write) suggest these are possible. The description is silent on what actually happens during execution, leaving the agent without critical safety or side-effect knowledge.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the primary action. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of essential details, which is a trade-off that reduces effectiveness overall.

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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema explanation, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to set up the contract verification, what the required 'path' refers to, how 'options' is structured, or what the return value contains. Every aspect beyond the mention of --allow-slow is left unspecified, making the tool effectively inscrutable for an AI agent.

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%, meaning none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself only mentions the --allow-slow flag, leaving the other 12 parameters undefined. An agent cannot infer the meaning of options like path, pact_files, provider_url, or allow_browser from the tool description, making it impossible to correctly invoke the tool beyond the simplest case.

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 clearly states the tool's two distinct actions: importing a local Pact report and running local contract verifications with the --allow-slow flag. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like rush_test or rush_lint, which focus on other concerns. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool as an alternative, so it doesn't fully separate itself in the broader context.

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 usage: when you have a Pact report or want to verify contracts. But it provides no conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. With a large sibling list, the lack of routing guidance is a notable gap.

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