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 well: it declares the tool is deterministic (git + filesystem, no LLM), describes the categories of findings, and explains each `recommendation` value including the implied next action. It never explicitly states that the call is non-mutating or side-effect free, which is the one remaining gap.

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 action in the first sentence, then layers return contents, the recommendation enum, and usage guidance in a compact, information-dense block. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does, enumerating stale entries, changed files, new files, ghost files, renames, and the recommendation values. Combined with the usage guidance and determinism note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `dir` fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Check how far the concept map has drifted from HEAD') with an explicit scope, and its framing (drift check) cleanly separates it from siblings like mason_init, save_snapshot, and verify_snapshot. An agent can identify it without opening the 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 clear triggering conditions ('before trusting the map in a long session, or when maintaining an existing map') and routes the agent to the follow-up action, save_snapshot, for the incremental case. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct comparison against the closest sibling, verify_snapshot, so it falls just short of a 5.

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