rush_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the non-destructive behavior ('without rewriting files') and the degraded-mode behavior when markdownlint-cli is absent ('returns status='skipped''). It does not mention every possible side effect, but for a single-path checker these are the most operationally critical details.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core operation, then adds the non-rewriting guarantee and the tool-missing fallback. There is no filler or repetition of information already present in the schema.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior, the no-write guarantee, and an important environmental edge case. It leaves ambiguous what kind of Markdown checking is performed (lint rules, link validation, etc.), but the output schema and tool name fill in enough context.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'path', and the description references it ('at <path>'), but adds little beyond the parameter name and format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more by explaining whether the path is expected to be a file, directory, or glob, though the simple single-parameter case keeps this from being a severe gap.

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 states the tool checks Markdown at a given path and explicitly notes it does not rewrite files, which distinguishes it from formatting tools like rush_format. It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not name sibling alternatives such as rush_lint or rush_review to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'without rewriting files' implies this is the read-only checking variant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like rush_lint, rush_format, or rush_review. An agent can infer the general use case, but the description stops short of offering clear use-vs-alternative direction.

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