rush_provenance_ai

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only that it computes and returns data, but does not mention potential side effects such as slow execution, cache/artifact writes, network/download access, or build operations—all suggested by the allow_* parameters. This under-disclosure could lead to failed invocations.

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 sentences with no fluff; the first sentence front-loads the core functionality and the second states the return shape. It is appropriately sized, though somewhat terse.

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 tool is moderately complex (8 parameters, one required, output schema present). The description misses essential context about parameter semantics and behavioral flags, which are critical for correct invocation. The output schema covers return values, but the allow_* flags are left completely unexplained.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter. It does not explain the required 'path' parameter or any of the eight allow_* flags, leaving the agent with only parameter names to guess from.

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 resource (git commit trailers) and three concrete analytical actions (AI attribution analysis, survival curve calculation, defect correlation). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like rush_ai_eval or rush_attest, even without naming them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what 'path' should point to or when the allow_* flags must be enabled. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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