rush_arch_guard

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

The verb 'validate' implies a non-mutating analysis of architecture boundaries, which is a meaningful behavioral signal. However, with no annotations and no explicit statement about read-only guarantees or failure behavior, the description leaves some behavioral traits implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the exact validation target in minimal words, which is well-suited to a zero-argument tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the mechanical invocation is fully covered. The main gap is the lack of selection context among the many sibling quality/architecture tools, leaving the agent to infer when this guard is the right choice.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity or invocation risk. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('validate') and a unique focus ('clean architecture layer boundaries'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic lint/test/review tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say what it is not, so it misses the full 5-level differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rush_lint, rush_review, or rush_semantic-drift. The purpose phrase implies the domain, but no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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