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. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether files are written), required file format, supported languages, or what happens on failure. The description only states the high-level action, leaving significant behavioral unknowns for a code-generation tool.

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 verb and the object. It contains no filler and is immediately scannable. It is slightly terse, which reduces completeness, but as a structure it is efficient.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values may be covered elsewhere), the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain what the 'file' parameter should contain, whether the tool modifies files in place, what input formats are accepted, or any expected preconditions. For a tool that generates runtime guards, this is a notable gap.

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. The single parameter 'file' is not explained at all beyond the schema's generic string type. The phrase 'unvalidated parameters' hints that the file may contain such parameters, but it never explicitly defines what 'file' is, its format, or how it relates to the synthesis. This is insufficient guidance for an agent to correctly populate the parameter.

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 ('synthesize') and resource ('runtime type guards') with a clear target ('unvalidated parameters'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like rush_lint or rush_typecheck, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the numerous rush_* siblings. The phrase 'for unvalidated parameters' implies a condition, but there is no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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