rush_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does so by explicitly stating the tool does not rewrite and that sqlfluff's absence results in status='skipped'. This is meaningful beyond the schema and gives the agent a concrete failure-mode expectation. It could add more about success behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

A single compact sentence packs purpose, a behavior guarantee, and a dependency fallback with no filler. The key action is front-loaded before the status detail.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, no-rewrite behavior, and the missing-dependency fallback. The lack of explicit parameter semantics and sibling routing is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 never mentions 'path' or explains that the argument identifies the SQL file to check. The only cues are the 'path' property name and the tool's name, so the description adds no semantic value for the parameter beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SQL'), and the qualifier 'without rewriting' gives the tool a distinct identity relative to formatter/rewriter tools like rush_format. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'without rewriting' implies this is the check-only choice when a rewriting alternative is available, so there is at least an implied usage context. It does not explicitly name rush_format or rush_lint as alternatives, nor state when to prefer one over the other.

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