rush_db_drift

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'Audit' and 'detect' imply a read-only inspection that does not modify data, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, connection requirements, or what happens when drift is 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?

A single, focused sentence conveys the action, inputs, and expected result without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word adds meaning.

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 no parameters and an output schema available, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when it is relevant. No additional return-value details are needed because the output schema exists.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters because there are no parameters to document.

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 ('Audit'), identifies the resources being compared (ORM models vs migrations), and names the exact outcome (detect schema drift). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rush_semantic-drift, which targets semantic drift rather than database migration schema drift.

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 intended use is implied: run this when you want to find schema drift between ORM models and migrations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it point to any sibling alternative such as rush_semantic-drift or rush_sql for related but different checks.

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