rush_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses a non-mutating behavior ('without rewriting') and specifies an edge-case behavior: 'missing actionlint returns status=\'skipped\''. This gives the agent useful expectations beyond the schema.

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 sentence with two tightly packed clauses. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about missing actionlint is placed second. No filler words or redundant schema repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not the description's responsibility. The description covers tool behavior and a key edge case, but it leaves the 'path' parameter ambiguous and does not explain what 'without rewriting' means operationally. Given the one-parameter complexity and existing output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 single required 'path' parameter. The description does not explain what 'path' should point to — a workflow file, a directory, or a repository root — leaving the agent to guess. The parameter name and format offer limited guidance, but the description adds no semantic value for it.

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: 'Check GitHub Actions workflows'. It also adds a distinguishing behavior, 'without rewriting', which helps separate it from tools that might modify or format workflows. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 'without rewriting' implies a usage condition, suggesting this tool is for checking workflows without making changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rush_ci or rush_yaml, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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