rush_context_mistakes_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check', which implies a read operation but does not state side effects, whether it requires a particular repository state, how it defines a mistake, or what it does with the reverts found.

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 one short sentence with no filler, wasted words, or irrelevant details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, invocation requirements are minimal. However, the description is thin on behavioral context: it does not clarify what qualifies as a mistake or anti-pattern, nor whether the check is purely read-only. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or misleading parameter information.

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 has a clear verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('git revert history'), and a target purpose ('past mistakes and anti-patterns'). It is reasonably distinct from the sibling tools, though the exact meaning of 'mistakes' and 'anti-patterns' is left somewhat vague.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned. The agent must infer that this tool is relevant when reviewing git history for past errors, and it is not told how to choose between this and related review/context tools.

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