rush_yaml

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description usefully discloses that the tool does not rewrite files and that missing spectral yields status='skipped'. It does not cover error handling or permission requirements, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful.

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?

One compact sentence carries two essential pieces of information: non-mutating behavior and a fallback status. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 with a single path parameter and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks guidance on how rush_yaml relates to sibling tools and what 'check' specifically entails (parse vs lint vs validate), which is relevant given the large sibling group.

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 never mentions the path parameter, its required status, or any expected format. The path parameter's semantics are left entirely to the schema's title/format, so the description adds no value here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check YAML'. The phrase 'without rewriting' clarifies scope and distinguishes it from formatting tools like rush_format, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies use when you want to validate YAML without modifying it, which is a clear condition. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives, leaving routing against the many sibling tools to inference.

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