rush_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it adds useful context: 'Safely' signals caution, 'Enforces strict path confinement' is a concrete safety guarantee, and the return shape is stated. However, it does not explain what 'safe' entails, whether files are modified in place, or how force/dry_run affect execution.

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 compact and informative, using three short clauses that each add value: the action, the return format, and the safety constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler or redundant wording.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the description includes the return shape, the tool has no annotations and the parameter documentation is incomplete. Missing context around force versus dry_run behavior and the exact side effects of remediation leaves an important gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it safely.

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 needs to compensate, but it only clarifies the path parameter via '<path>'. The meaning and effect of 'force' and 'dry_run' are not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess their roles despite them being important for a remediation tool.

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 identifies the tool as an auto-remediation action for formatting and linter issues at a specific path, using a strong verb ('auto-remediate') and resource ('formatting and linter issues'). It is distinguishable from siblings like rush_lint, but it does not explicitly contrast with rush_format or other closely related tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 context of use is implied: use this tool when formatting or linter issues need to be automatically fixed at a path. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer rush_fix over rush_lint, rush_format, or rush_review, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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