rush_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the diagnostic scope and the returned shape. It does not disclose whether the tool is strictly read-only, whether it runs external commands, or what other side effects or requirements exist. The return structure is already covered by the output schema.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, the second states the return shape. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can call it with defaults and understand the result. It remains incomplete in usage guidance, path semantics, and behavioral safety, which are significant for a diagnostic tool with no annotations.

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 says 'at <path>', which adds little beyond the schema's field name and format. It does not explain what kind of path is expected—project root, directory, config file, or something else—so an agent lacks semantic guidance for the single parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Diagnose' and names concrete resources: environment health, toolchain integrity, and binary resolution at a path. This is clear and distinct from the general 'rush_*' tool names, though it does not explicitly differentiate from diagnostic siblings like rush_iam_audit or rush_security.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Diagnose' and the target categories—an agent can infer it should be used when investigating environment or toolchain problems. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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