mason

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 describes what the tool returns (three signals) and its purpose (impact analysis before editing), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. It provides some context but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and return values, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (impact analysis with multiple signals), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the three return signals and usage context. However, it could be more complete by detailing the output format or any prerequisites. It's largely adequate but has minor gaps for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('dir' and 'files') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid file formats beyond the schema's examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('analyze the impact of changing specific files') and resources ('files'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns three specific signals (git co-change, references, related tests). It goes beyond just restating the name/title to explain what the analysis entails.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this before editing a file to understand what else might need updating'), providing clear context and a practical guideline. While it doesn't name specific alternatives among siblings, it gives a strong directional cue that sets it apart from tools like 'analyze_project' or 'get_code_samples'.

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