rush_agent_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates high-level verbs. It doesn't say whether connecting is read-only, whether it scans local processes or files, whether authentication is needed, or what side effects discovery/diagnosis might have.

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 sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential invocation detail and reads more like a marketing tagline than a functional specification.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description leaves the input contract entirely unknown. With only a generic request object and no behavioral detail, the tool is not callable based on this definition alone.

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 one required 'request' object with additionalProperties: true and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no hints about what fields the request should contain, so an agent cannot construct a valid invocation.

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 three active verbs—Discover, connect, and diagnose—against a clear resource: local coding agents. This distinguishes the tool from most generic rush_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 given about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as rush_doctor, rush_context_retrieve, or rush_scan. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool pointers.

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