rush_error_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral requirement: exporting markdown requires --allow-artifact-write, which informs the agent about write permissions. However, it does not clarify whether extraction itself writes anything, what side effects occur, or what the output schema contains beyond the catalog concept.

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 primary action and includes a key requirement. The only flaw is the awkward literal '<path>' placeholder and the semicolon structure, which slightly reduce clarity without wasting words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the description is still incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool. It provides no usage context relative to siblings and leaves path and export_path semantics underspecified. The tool is not adequately self-contained.

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 only indirectly addresses the allow_artifact_write parameter via the export requirement, and it uses a literal '<path>' placeholder without explaining what path should be provided. export_path is completely unexplained.

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 ('Extract') with a clear resource ('Python, TypeScript, and Rust exceptions at <path>') and a concrete output concept (RFC 7807 problem catalog). This clearly differentiates it from the large sibling set of rush_* tools, none of which claim this behavior.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool as opposed to any of the many sibling tools. It states its function but does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions for choosing it.

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