rush_strictify

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Synthesize' implies generation, but the description does not state whether it modifies the given file, writes new files, requires specific project structure, or has side effects. This is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity, but as far as conciseness and structure go, it 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?

The tool has a single undocumented required parameter, no annotations, and a niche purpose, yet the description gives no context about input requirements, output behavior, or side effects. Even though an output schema exists, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool in the right situation.

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 does not mention the 'file' parameter at all. The agent is left to guess what 'file' refers to, what format it should be, and how it relates to the synthesis of runtime type guards. The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Synthesize') and a clear resource ('runtime type guards for unvalidated parameters'), so an agent can understand the tool's core function. However, it does not actively distinguish this tool from siblings like rush_contract or rush_typecheck, and the role of the required 'file' parameter is left implicit.

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 rush_strictify versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'for unvalidated parameters' implies some context, but it does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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