rush_ship_env

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Audit' reasonably signals a read-only inspection rather than a mutation, and the scope is clearly the environment-variable usage check. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, permissions, or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter local audit the implied non-mutating nature is a meaningful disclosure.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the verb, scope, and reference file with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument tool.

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 presence of an output schema and zero parameters lower the burden, and the one-liner conveys the core operation. However, it omits when to choose this tool over many sibling audit/secret-related tools and any non-obvious preconditions, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 schema already covers everything and the description is not required to explain arguments. The description's mention of `.env.example` clarifies the audit target, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('codebase environment variable usage'), anchored against a concrete reference file (`.env.example`), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish this from sibling audit-oriented tools such as `rush_iam_audit` or `rush_secrets`, which keeps it from 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?

There is no guidance on when to run this tool or when to prefer a sibling such as `rush_secrets`, `rush_iam_audit`, or `rush_security`. The description gives the operation but no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection context.

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