Rush preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeat-call semantics are covered. The description contributes one piece of context beyond that — that the values reflect the deck's *current* live tuning — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or what happens when no preferences are set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though the em-dash clause is slightly cryptic for someone unfamiliar with what a 'Rush deck' is.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of sketching the return value; it partially does so ('content mix and the categories it draws from') but never enumerates the shape. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the response fields.

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 100% for the single workspaceId parameter, which already documents that it defaults to the active workspace. The description adds no additional meaning about scoping or defaulting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concretely names the resource (the Rush deck's current tuning) and enumerates what it covers — content mix and source categories — so an agent knows it reads preference/configuration state. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as get_rush_feed or schedule_rush_lineup, keeping it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, even though the sibling list contains get_rush_feed, resolve_rush_item, and schedule_rush_lineup, which are the obvious confusable tools. The description only says what the payload is, leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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