mason_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares status read-only, states that check writes local baselines and verification reports, and explicitly says it does not edit source or approve advisories. It also discloses the return shape (concise results plus a full report path), which is useful behavioral context.

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?

It is appropriately short and front-loads the purpose, but the sentences are dense with undefined jargon ('host events', 'a map') that reduces clarity rather than earning its place. Structure is fine, wording is the problem.

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 2-param tool with no output schema it covers behavior and return shape adequately, but the cryptic terms leave real ambiguity about scope and preconditions. It is the minimum viable level of completeness.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real semantic value by explaining the two action values beyond the schema (status read-only vs check saving baselines/reports) and by clarifying the 'works without a map' condition for dir usage.

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?

It names two modes (inspect automation/host events, resume/check documentation repair evidence) and the action verbs, but the jargon ('observed host events', 'retained documentation repair evidence', 'a map') makes the actual purpose hard to parse. It never distinguishes itself from the many sibling mason_* tools.

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?

It gives implied when-to-use guidance by contrasting the two enum values ('status is read-only; check saves local baselines...') and notes a precondition ('Works without a map'). However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings like mason_check_drift or verify_snapshot.

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