rush_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a non-mutating operation ('without rewriting') and reveals an important edge case: when djlint is missing, the tool returns status='skipped'. This gives the agent useful safety and fallback information, though it does not describe all potential statuses.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler: it fronts the core action, states the non-rewriting behavior, and adds the djlint-missing fallback. Every clause contributes value.

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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves the path parameter semantics unclear and does not describe the normal success/failure behavior besides the 'skipped' case. It is adequate for a simple check tool but has a clear gap in parameter guidance.

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 for the lone 'path' parameter, but it does not explain what path should point to (e.g., a template file or directory). The only implicit clue is the word 'templates', which is not enough for reliable parameter usage.

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 and resource: 'Check templates' immediately identifies the action and target. The qualifier 'without rewriting' also distinguishes it from formatting that would modify files, though it does not name which sibling tool handles rewriting.

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 phrase 'without rewriting' implies this is the read-only checking alternative to rewrite-oriented tools, so the intended context is somewhat clear. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool such as rush_format or rush_lint is referenced as an alternative.

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