rush_db_drift

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only diagnostic operation but never explicitly states that it performs no mutations, what kind of report or exit status it produces, or how it handles nondeterminism. The phrase 'Audit... to detect' gives intent but not behavioral detail.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the core action and target are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description is mostly adequate: it states the subject and purpose clearly. However, without annotations or any usage guidance, and in the face of dozens of sibling rush_* tools, it leaves some ambiguity about when this checker should be invoked and what behavioral guarantees it offers.

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 nothing for the description to explain beyond its already-communicated domain. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description's reference to ORM models and migrations provides all necessary semantic context.

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 a specific verb ('Audit'), a concrete resource ('ORM models'), and a clear objective ('detect schema drift'), so an agent can understand what this tool does at a glance. It distinguishes itself from generic lint/audit siblings by targeting database schema drift, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any potential sibling like semantic drift.

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 choose this tool over the many sibling audit/drift tools, nor any stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Audit' and the resource scope, leaving an agent to infer when 'rush_db_drift' is the right call.

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