rush_context_gain_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' implying a live query, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or what happens on failure. No details about the output or any limitations are given.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, output schema present), so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks any context about what 'token economy' specifically refers to, potential use cases, or any prerequisites. For a tool with such a specific name, more context could help an agent decide if it's 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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools since there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given there are none.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get real-time token economy savings and cost metrics' identifies a specific verb (get) and resource (token economy savings and cost metrics). It is unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar context-related tools like rush_context_retrieve or rush_token_outline.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this should be preferred, nor any exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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