rush_mem_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful behavioral context by disclosing that a dynamic probe needs --allow-slow and that the result is {status, findings[], summary}. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what the dynamic probe entails, but 'audit' suggests a non-mutating operation.

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 with the core purpose. The return-shape sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but it is short and does not bloat the description.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It gives the purpose and one flag requirement, but an agent still lacks context on the options object, permission-related flags, and when to choose this audit tool over alternatives.

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 for 11 undocumented parameters. It only clarifies <path> as the target and ties allow_slow to the dynamic probe; the required 'options' object and the remaining allow_* flags are left unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('memory usage and unclosed resources at <path>'), making the tool's purpose clear. It stops short of explicitly naming or differentiating from siblings like rush_memory, but the audit focus and return shape give enough distinctiveness.

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 'Audit memory usage and unclosed resources' implies a diagnostic use case, and 'dynamic probe requires --allow-slow' gives a conditional usage hint. However, there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings 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.