rush_token_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the output is a compact 'skeleton' AST outline, which conveys some behavioral character. It does not mention side effects (or their absence), access requirements, or failure behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes 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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description fails to explain focus_symbol and offers no routing guidance relative to many siblings. Yet the tool can be correctly called with only the required `path`, so it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 does not explain either parameter. 'path' is implied by 'code file', but 'focus_symbol' is entirely unexplained despite being an optional parameter with a default. The description adds no value beyond the bare input 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 states a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('AST skeleton outline of a code file'), making the tool's function understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like rush_complexity or rush_context_retrieve, so it misses the top score.

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 'token-efficient' implies the tool is intended for low-token structural overviews of code, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like rush_review or rush_complexity, nor any exclusions.

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