rush_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral details: the return shape {status, findings[], summary}, auto-selection of ruff/eslint, and the meaning of status='skipped'. This is strong, though it could have explained more about side effects or failure modes.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The action is first, return shape second, and engine/status behavior third. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers the core behavior, return shape, and skip condition. The main gap is the undocumented engine_args parameter, which prevents a 5 but does not undermine basic invocation.

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 explains <path> implicitly and mentions engines, but it never explains the engine_args parameter at all. An agent would not know how to pass additional arguments to the linters from this description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lint Python/JS/TS files at <path>.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like rush_typecheck or rush_format by naming exact languages and engines.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: linting Python, JavaScript, or TypeScript files, with engine selection based on language. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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