rush_prompt_eval

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 mentions the return structure ({status, findings[], summary}) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether it modifies state, or any error conditions. The minimal output hint is insufficient for a tool with 14 parameters.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and return format. It is concise with no fluff, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and only a bare output shape, the description is severely incomplete. An agent has almost no information about what 'options' means, how thresholds work, or what side effects might occur, making safe invocation unlikely.

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% and the description explains no parameters. It only implies 'path' is a location via '<path>', but 'options' and all other parameters (allow_slow, thresholds, etc.) remain completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 action ('Evaluate recorded prompt runs') and resource ('against golden task criteria'), and includes the return shape. It does not explicitly distinguish from any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous given the name and phrasing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios. The description is purely a one-liner with no usage direction.

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