rush_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it only says the tool plans, runs, and checks status. It does not mention side effects, whether it modifies project state, required permissions, execution time, or whether it is safe to run repeatedly. The multi-phase behavior is hinted at but not explained.

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 repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's high-level lifecycle. It is concise rather than overly verbose, though it sacrifices detail needed in other dimensions.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description remains incomplete for a tool with one opaque required parameter and no annotations. It lacks any information about request structure, operational behavior, or invocation context, leaving important gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 provides only an opaque 'request' object with additionalProperties true and zero property descriptions, so schema coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate at all: it never explains what the request should contain, what fields are expected, or how the plan/run/check behavior maps to the request. This leaves the agent with no meaningful guidance for constructing input.

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 clear verbs ('Plan, run, and check status') and names the resource ('full-project scan'), so an agent can grasp the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as rush_scan_handoff, but the scope of a full-project scan is reasonably specific.

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 exclusions, and no context that would help an agent choose it over sibling scan-related tools. The only implicit signal is that it is for full-project scans, which is not enough to inform routing decisions.

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