rush_hallu_guard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool compares imports against installed packages and the standard library, but it does not state whether the tool modifies files, how it resolves the environment, or what it does with missing or unknown imports.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The output schema likely covers return values, so those need not be described. However, the description omits important invocation context such as path semantics, whether scanning is recursive, and what counts as an 'installed package,' leaving an agent to guess.

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 only parameter, 'path', has no schema description and the description does not explain how path is used or what it should point to (file vs directory). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 specific verb ('Audit'), a specific resource ('code imports'), and the comparison target ('installed packages and stdlib'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like rush_lint, rush_security, and rush_dead, whose purposes are not about import validation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name and one-line description.

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