rush_iac

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool does not rewrite files and that missing local engines result in a 'skipped' status, which is valuable safety and degradation behavior. It could still elaborate on side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple check tool this is strong disclosure.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Check Terraform') and then provides the two most important qualifiers: no rewriting and skip behavior on missing engines. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple: one required path parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The description covers the main behavior and the skipped-status edge case, but it leaves ambiguity around what 'Terraform' refers to and what exactly happens when local engines are present. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter, 'path', but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the parameter. The agent is left to infer that 'path' points to a Terraform directory or file. The description does not add meaning about expected format, what the path should contain, or how it is resolved.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Check Terraform'. The phrase 'without rewriting' adds an important scoping detail that distinguishes it from mutation-style tools like rush_fix or rush_simplify. However, it does not name any sibling tool or elaborate on what kind of check is performed, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rush_review, rush_lint, or rush_security. The 'without rewriting' phrase implies a conservative read-only intent, but it does not state exclusions or direct the agent to a different tool under specific conditions.

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