rush_test

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

The description discloses the return shape, supported engines, and the special 'skipped' status meaning, all of which are behavioral details beyond what the schema or annotations provide. With no annotations available, this is meaningful transparency, though possible side effects or prerequisite conditions are not mentioned.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then delivers return shape, engine support, and an important edge case. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 single required parameter is covered, the return shape is stated, and the skipped status edge case is addressed. Missing context includes setup requirements and behavior on failure or timeout, but for a single-argument test runner with an output schema, the definition is nearly complete.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Project at <path>' adds semantic meaning that the path refers to a project root rather than an arbitrary file, and the single parameter is simple enough that this is largely sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'Run' with the identifiable resource 'tests for project at <path>', which makes the tool's function immediately clear and separates it from sibling lint/typecheck/format tools. It also adds return shape and engine support, reinforcing exactly what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling test-related tools such as rush_e2e, rush_test_heal, or rush_coverage, and no exclusion criteria. The engine list implies language fit, but it does not state when to use versus when not to use.

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