rush_snapshot

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 hints at slowness via '--allow-slow' but does not disclose whether importing snapshots mutates state, whether acceptance is permanent, or what side effects running snapshot tests may have.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It front-loads no key scoping information and uses an ambiguous 'or' structure that obscures the tool's primary purpose.

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?

Given 11 parameters, two claimed modes of operation, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably determine which mode to use, what path it must provide, or what importing entails.

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%, and the description compensates almost not at all. It only mentions '--allow-slow', leaving the meaning of critical parameters like path, options, accept, and report_path completely unexplained.

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 resource ('local snapshot comparison' / 'snapshot tests') and a verb ('Import' / 'run'), so it goes beyond a tautology. However, the two modes are ambiguous and the phrase 'Import a local snapshot comparison' is unclear about what importing means in practice.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rush_test or rush_visual. It mentions '--allow-slow' but does not explain when snapshot testing is the right choice or when another sibling should be used.

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