rush_api_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the fll burden. The verb 'detect' implies a non-mutating comparison, and 'against base Git ref' adds behavioral scope, but side effects, read-only guarantees, and any required repository state are not disclosed. It is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise while carrying the essential information.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the key input. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral safety disclosure, but the simplicity of the tool means the description is otherwise complete enough for correct selection.

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 only provides a 'base' parameter with a default of 'main' and no per-parameter description. The description clarifies that this parameter is a Git ref to compare against, adding meaning beyond the bare schema field. It does not specify accepted ref formats, but 'Git ref' is reasonably informative.

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 verb ('Detect') and resource ('breaking public API changes') and clarifies the comparison scope ('against base Git ref'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the broad sibling list, which are mostly format/lint/test/release utilities.

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 use case is implied by the description: run it when you need to detect breaking public API changes relative to a base git ref. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tooling, despite siblings like rush_semantic-drift and rush_contract that could plausibly overlap.

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