perseus_mason

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

The description discloses read-only behavior and notes returns ('returns concept map and mapped file list'), complementing the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions or omissions beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and behavioral info, making it easy to scan.

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 query tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, behavioral trait (read-only), and return type, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema's description of the 'query' parameter, which is adequate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query the Mason code architecture concept map to find which files implement a feature.' It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools by focusing on code architecture.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use before editing code to understand where changes should go,' providing clear context. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the guidance is sufficient.

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