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 states the operation is a 3-way AST merge conflict resolution, which implies it takes base/ours/theirs and produces a merged result, but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates any state, whether it is deterministic, what happens when conflicts cannot be auto-resolved, whether it returns a diff or a full merged file, or whether it has side effects. The description is too thin to give an agent confidence about the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Execute') and the key qualifier ('3-way AST merge conflict resolution'). It is appropriately sized for a tool with three self-descriptive parameters, though it could have used the available space to add one or two more sentences of behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not shown in the provided context. The description is a single sentence that names the operation but does not explain input semantics, output format, failure modes, or side effects. For a tool that performs a complex operation like AST merge conflict resolution, an agent would need more context to invoke it correctly and interpret the result. The output schema exists but is not visible in the context, so the description should have compensated with more detail.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description names the merge strategy (3-way AST) but does not explain the semantics of base_code, ours_code, and theirs_code beyond what their names imply. It does not clarify the expected format (full file contents? snippets?), language constraints, or how the three inputs relate to each other. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no meaningful detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute 3-way AST merge conflict resolution.' It identifies the operation (merge conflict resolution) and the method (3-way AST), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools, none of which are merge tools. However, it lacks detail about what the tool actually does with the three code inputs—whether it returns a merged result, a conflict report, or both—so the purpose is clear at a high level but not fully specified.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list contains no other merge tool, there is no explicit statement of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., valid ASTs, language support), or when a different tool like rush_patch_apply or rush_review might be more suitable. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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