rush_context_retrieve

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

The description discloses that the returned content is uncompressed, but no annotation is present to cover safety/aspects. It does not state whether this is a pure read operation, what happens for an unknown or missing hash, or whether any related state is changed.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The core action and key qualifier are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, this one-line description leaves important gaps: the meaning of 'path', what a successful response looks like, and expected behavior on errors are all absent. More context is needed for reliable 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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only hints at 'chunk_hash' via the phrase 'by hash' and says nothing about 'path' or its default value, leaving a required aspect of the tool under-specified.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('content from CCR chunk store'), and a lookup key ('hash'), making the tool's purpose clear. It stands apart from sibling tools like rush_context_pack and rush_context_mistakes_check, though it does not explicitly name a distinguishing 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when it is appropriate to call it. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as having a valid hash or needing a particular path context.

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