rush_trace

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool scans code and specs and emits a matrix, which is the core read-only behavior. However, it does not state whether files are modified, what 'specs' means, or any side effects; for a scan-and-report tool these gaps are moderate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's action and output.

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 (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to document return values. Still, without annotations or usage guidance, the description could better clarify when this is preferred over related rush_* audit/scan tools and what traceability sources are included. It is adequate for a no-arg tool but leaves selection context to the agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description's 'codebase and specs' simply reflects the implicit project scope. There are no parameter semantics to document, so the baseline 4 applies.

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 concrete action ('scan') with explicit inputs ('codebase and specs') and a well-defined output ('requirement traceability matrix'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that target different concerns, such as rush_lint or rush_license_matrix.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing is given. The term 'requirement traceability matrix' implies the use case, but the agent is left to infer that this is the tool for requirements coverage mapping and is not told how it differs from other scanning/auditing siblings.

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