rush_visual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral fact—updates require --accept—implying that normal checks are non-mutating. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, failure modes, or what happens when baselines differ.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. The second clause, 'updates require --accept,' is compact but slightly cryptic. Overall, there is no wasted text.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is too sparse. It does not clarify what path or options should contain, how to trigger an update, or what the output represents, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 any of the 9 parameters. It references --accept, which is not a named property in the input schema, leaving path, options, and the allow_* flags entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Check visual baselines,' so an agent can identify this as a visual-baseline verification tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like rush_snapshot, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many rush_* sibling tools. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'Check visual baselines,' which is not enough to help an agent decide between this and related tools.

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