rush_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it promises no file rewriting and discloses a graceful 'skipped' outcome when spectral is absent. It could add what happens on success or invalid YAML, but the output schema is present to cover return shape.

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?

One dense, well-ordered sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the dependency caveat. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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, no-annotation tool, the description covers the key invocation facts: what is checked, that it's non-mutating, and what happens when spectral is missing. It doesn't explain how to distinguish this from the broader rush_lint sibling, and the success/failure statuses are left to the output schema, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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. It doesn't document the path parameter directly, but 'Check YAML' makes it clear the single required path points to a YAML file. The bare schema title and format carry the rest, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

States a specific action (check) and resource (YAML), and adds a meaningful qualifier: it does not rewrite the file. It does not explicitly name a sibling or say what kind of check is performed, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'Check YAML without rewriting' implies use when validating YAML rather than formatting or rewriting it, and 'missing spectral' hints at dependency behavior. It gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives, so usage must be inferred.

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