rush_offline_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it usefully discloses that the tool relies on a local runner on PATH, returns 'skipped' when no runner is found, and returns {status, findings[], summary}. This goes beyond the schema and gives agents a realistic expectation of fallback behavior.

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 two concise sentences with the primary purpose and key fallback behavior front-loaded. There is no fluff or repeated schema material.

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 the description covers purpose and return shape, the tool is complex with 11 parameters and no annotations. The many boolean permission flags and the opaque 'options' parameter are left completely undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct invocation beyond the high-level intent.

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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of them. It only indirectly references local LLM runners, leaving path, model, options, and all allow_* booleans 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 clearly identifies the action ('Run air-gapped code review'), the resource ('code'), and the distinguishing mechanism ('external local LLM (ollama/llama-cli) on PATH'). It also differentiates from sibling rush_review by emphasizing the air-gapped/local nature.

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 air-gapped qualifier provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, implying use in offline environments or when a local LLM is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives like rush_review or state when not to use it, so it misses the full exclusion guidance.

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