rush_load

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that executing load traffic requires --allow-network, but it doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, or behavior of the allow_* and cache/artifact flags. A mutation-capable tool with this many flags needs significantly more behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. While it is terse, every phrase adds information. It could benefit from structuring the two modes, but it is concise.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the high parameter complexity and missing annotations require more context. The description fails to explain required arguments, mode selection criteria, or how the permission flags shape behavior. This is not complete enough for reliable tool selection/invocation.

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 explain parameters; it only alludes to allow_network via --allow-network. Required 'path' and 'options' are completely unexplained, as are slow/build/browser/download/cache/artifact options. This is inadequate for 10 parameters.

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?

Describes a specific capability: importing a local load report or executing load traffic, with the network mode tied to --allow-network. This is clear enough to distinguish it from a generic name, but it doesn't explicitly position it against siblings. The dual 'or' structure introduces some ambiguity about which mode an agent should infer.

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 two use cases (local report import and network-enabled load traffic) and mentions when --allow-network applies. It does not state when to prefer rush_load over related tools or give prerequisites/exclusions. The usage guidance is therefore at the 'implied' level.

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