mason

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's output format (curated code sample previews ~60 lines each) and its role as a starting point, but lacks details on performance characteristics, error handling, or resource requirements. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first details the tool's function and outputs, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every element serves a purpose with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (comprehensive analysis with multiple outputs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does well by specifying the return components and usage context. However, it could be more complete by detailing output structure or error cases, though it compensates somewhat with clear workflow guidance.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'dir' clearly documented as 'Absolute path to the project root directory.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('Run a complete project analysis') and enumerates the exact outputs (git history stats, project structure, code samples, test mapping). It distinguishes itself from siblings by offering a comprehensive analysis in one call, unlike more focused tools like get_code_samples or analyze_project.

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 provides usage guidance: 'This is the recommended starting point — call this first, then read specific files natively for full content.' It positions this tool as the initial step in a workflow and distinguishes it from alternatives by suggesting follow-up actions with other tools.

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