rush_test_heal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Diagnose and suggest fixes' implies a non-mutating analysis, but it does not state whether the tool actually runs tests, how many executions occur, whether it writes files, or what side effects to expect. The 'runs' parameter hints at test repetition, but this is not disclosed.

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. Every word contributes to communicating the tool's core function.

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 is simple, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves important gaps around execution behavior, expected side effects, and how to choose this tool over rush_flaky or rush_fix. The output schema may cover return values, but the pre-invocation context is 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, but it explains neither 'target' nor 'runs'. The phrase 'flaky test race conditions' weakly implies that 'target' is a test target, but the description adds no concrete meaning about required format, defaults, or how 'runs' influences behavior.

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 ('Diagnose') and resource ('flaky test race conditions') and mentions the outcome ('suggest fixes'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling rush_flaky, which may cover similar ground.

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 'flaky test race conditions' implies when this tool should be used, giving an agent some contextual signal. However, it does not state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as rush_flaky, rush_test, or rush_fix.

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