Scan codebase and specifications to produce a requirement traceability matrix, mapping each requirement to code for clear visibility and gap detection.
Scan codebase and specs to output requirement traceability matrix
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_traceArguments"New value: +"rush_traceArguments"Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_traceOutput"New value: +"rush_traceOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. 'Scan' and 'output' hint at a read-only analysis, but the description does not state side effects, what inputs are consumed, or any operational impact. This is minimal disclosure for an unannotated tool.
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, direct sentence beginning with the action and ending with the deliverable. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary 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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, which reduces the need for return-value documentation. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves an agent uncertain about when to select this tool over siblings and what exactly the output matrix covers.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and no required arguments, so the description does not need to explain any parameters. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 and deliverable: scan the codebase and specs to produce a requirement traceability matrix. This is clear and distinguishes the tool from most siblings, but it does not name an alternative or clarify what the matrix contains.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus any of the many rush_* siblings. The description implies it is for traceability work, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.