rush_codeql

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. It discloses that it can run under --allow-build, but it does not explain side effects such as slow execution, build invocation, network usage, or artifact/cache writes. The many allow_* parameters hint at behavior, but the description itself adds almost no transparency beyond the mode names.

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 compact sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, merging two distinct modes into one clause without any separation or elaboration.

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 an output schema being present, a CodeQL tool with two modes, nine parameters, and no annotations needs more context to be callable correctly. The description omits how to choose modes, what the allow flags enable, expected behavior, and potential side effects. It is not complete enough for safe autonomous invocation.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly references report_path and allow_build via 'SARIF report' and '--allow-build'. Required path and the other seven flags, including allow_slow, allow_network, and allow_artifact_write, receive no semantic explanation. This is minimal added value for a nine-parameter tool.

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 names two concrete operations: importing a local CodeQL SARIF report and running CodeQL analysis with --allow-build. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and action, and CodeQL is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with rush_security, but the purpose is not vague.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rush_security, nor does it explain when to import a SARIF report versus run an analysis. The two modes are implied, but the conditions for choosing one are left entirely to the reader.

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