mason_check_drift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses determinism (git + filesystem, no LLM), enumerates exactly what is returned (stale features/flows, new files, ghost files, renames), and defines all three recommendation outcomes with their follow-up actions.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then packs behavior, return shape, and usage timing into tight sentences with no filler. The recommendation enum is inline and self-explaining.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description fully explains the return values and recommendation semantics, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool. Nothing material is missing for a single-param diagnostic.

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% and the single 'dir' parameter is documented there, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (check drift) and resource (the concept map) with a clear scope (drift relative to HEAD). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like verify_snapshot or get_snapshot without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('before trusting the map in a long session', 'periodically to keep the map and synced wikis fresh') and routes the incremental case to save_snapshot. It stops short of naming when to avoid the tool, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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