rush_coverage

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 disclosing behavior. It mentions two high-level operations but does not explain side effects, whether importing writes files, what the allow_* flags actually permit, or what happens during a slow analysis. '--allow-slow' hints at a performance trade-off but remains 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 a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. The phrase 'under --allow-slow' is slightly cryptic, but overall the description is efficient and readable.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, one sentence is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool. Important details about mode selection, the role of report_path, and what the allow_* flags control are missing.

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. It adds minimal meaning for 'path' (local coverage report) and 'allow_slow' (--allow-slow), but the remaining seven parameters—including report_path, allow_build, allow_browser, allow_network, and allow_artifact_write—are not described beyond their self-explanatory names.

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 identifies a specific coverage-related resource and names two concrete operations: importing a local report or running coverage analysis. 'Under --allow-slow' is somewhat ambiguous, but the overall purpose is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like rush_lint or rush_test.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as rush_test or rush_complexity. The description implies a choice between import and analysis modes, but it does not explain when each mode is appropriate or what prerequisites apply.

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