rush_semantic-drift

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose prerequisites (browser and slow permissions) and the comparison-based behavior, which is useful. However, it does not state side effects, whether baselines are written, or how permissions beyond the two required flags are handled.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second gives the essential invocation requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 the output schema exists, return values do not need explaining. But for a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the short description leaves important gaps around path meaning, side effects, and how the other allow flags should be treated.

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. It adds meaning only to --allow-browser and --allow-slow by stating they are required, but leaves the required path parameter unexplained and gives no semantics for the other six flags. The agent still cannot confidently know what to pass for path.

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 states a specific function: semantic drift detection by comparing rendered DOM/accessibility against a baseline. This clearly identifies the resource and method, and distinguishes it from siblings like rush_visual or rush_snapshot enough to guess intent. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of 5.

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 description gives clear operational context: the tool is for semantic drift detection and requires both --allow-browser and --allow-slow to be enabled. This is practical guidance for invocation, though it does not compare against alternatives or explain 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.