rush_semantic_drift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the browser/slow-mode prerequisites and the DOM/accessibility comparison mechanism, but it does not mention side effects, baseline storage, or whether other allow_* flags are needed.

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?

One tight sentence with no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite follows. Both clauses add information not already present in the schema.

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 8 parameters and zero annotations, this description is too thin. It omits path semantics, the purpose of the other allow_* flags, and behavioral/side-effect context. The output schema may cover return values, but invocation-level context remains incomplete.

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 only clarifies the allow_browser and allow_slow flags; the required path and the other six allow_* parameters are left to name inference, which is insufficient.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as semantic drift detection and specifies what is compared: rendered DOM/accessibility against a baseline. This is distinguishable from siblings like rush_db_drift or rush_visual, though it lacks a strong action verb and does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states that both --allow-browser and --allow-slow must be enabled, which is critical because the schema marks them as optional with default false. This gives clear invocation context, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over sibling scan tools.

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