rush_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is 'Always check-only in v0.1', which is a critical safety trait, and discloses the return shape and per-language engines. It could clarify how the 'check' parameter interacts with the always-check-only behavior, but overall it is transparent.

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 front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by return shape, engines, and the safety caveat. Every sentence adds useful information without repeating schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential action, language scope, engine mapping, and safety posture. The main remaining gap is the exact meaning of the 'check' parameter and whether 'path' may be a directory or only a file, but these do not prevent correct 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 compensate. It clarifies that 'path' refers to files to format and names the supported languages, and the 'check-only' line hints at the boolean's behavior. However, it never explicitly explains the 'check' parameter's true/false semantics, leaving the default false somewhat confusing given the always-check-only claim.

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 action ('Format'), a resource ('Python/JS/TS files at <path>'), and the exact engines used. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rush_lint or rush_fix even without an explicit comparison.

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 provides clear context: use it to format Python/JS/TS files, and it is always check-only in v0.1. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the language scope and check-only caveat give a clear operational frame.

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