rush_context_retrieve

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, and 'uncompressed content' hints at the expected result, but there is no mention of failure behavior, response format, size limits, or effects beyond retrieval, which is minimal for an unannotated tool.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. Key information—action, target, and selection mechanism—is efficiently packed and front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves notable gaps: the return format is unspecified, error/not-found behavior is absent, and the meaning of 'path' in the input schema is unexplained. It is adequate for a very simple lookup but incomplete for safe autonomous use.

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 itself. It partially clarifies chunk_hash via 'by hash', but the optional 'path' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and relationship to the chunk store unexplained.

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 clear action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('CCR chunk store'), and the lookup key ('by hash'). This distinguishes it from related context sibling tools like rush_context_pack and rush_context_mistakes_check, which clearly do different things.

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 phrase 'by hash' implies this tool should be used when the caller already has a chunk_hash and wants uncompressed content. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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