rush_ship_gate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says to 'run' a readiness cockpit, without revealing whether it performs analysis, modifies state, produces a report, or fails partway. This is minimal and mostly inferential.

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 terse sentence with no filler, which is concise, but the dense jargon '7-vector' and 'cockpit' substitutes for explanation. It is compact yet not meaningfully structured for an agent.

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?

With no annotations and an output schema that is only marked as present, the description must do most of the contextual work, but it does not explain what the seven vectors are, what readiness means here, or how the result should be interpreted. This is too incomplete for a tool that appears to be a complex gate.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description cannot add much value in this dimension.

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 supplies an action ('Run') and a domain ('pre-flight release readiness'), but the resource is only a metaphorical 'cockpit' and '7-vector' is unexplained. It is not a tautology, but it lacks enough specificity to clearly distinguish this from the many release- and ship-related sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rush_release, rush_ship_clean, or rush_ship_env. The name implies a pre-ship gate, but the description never states the triggering condition, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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