rush_swarm_merge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation type and gives no information about side effects, mutation behavior, return semantics, or environmental requirements. It does not contradict anything, but it is far too thin on behavior.

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 is appropriately short for a simple operation, though slightly more detail would be welcome for completeness.

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 has three required parameters, no annotations, and only a one-line description. It lacks crucial context such as how the inputs combine, what the output represents, side effects, and failure modes. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 parameter-level detail. The parameter names (base_code, ours_code, theirs_code) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their exact roles, expected formats, or relationship to the merge process.

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 action ('Execute 3-way AST merge conflict resolution') with a clear resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rush_lint or rush_format, though it does not explicitly name a closest alternative.

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 '3-way AST merge conflict resolution' implies a usage context: resolving conflicts between base, ours, and theirs versions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.