mason_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the output categories for verify (resolved, unresolved, review-required, unverified, new findings), that suppressed advisories stay unresolved, that the tool never edits docs or approves decisions, and that no map is required. Remaining gaps are permissions and write-scope details for the baseline file that prepare saves.

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-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the mode-by-mode flow, then constraints and scope exclusions. Four dense sentences, none of them filler.

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 two-mode tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, the verify result categories, and what the tool will not do. It is nearly complete; only the on-disk effect of prepare (where/how the baseline is stored) is left unspecified.

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 75%, so the schema already documents dir, checks, and baselinePath. The description reinforces the action/baselinePath relationship ('verify reads that baseline', baselinePath required for verify) but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Track documentation repairs against original audit evidence') and distinguishes the two modes: prepare saves a baseline and returns a work order, verify reads it and reports findings. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as mason_check_drift or verify_snapshot, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 prepare-then-verify workflow is spelled out with the condition that selects each action, and the negative scope ('Does not edit documentation or approve decisions') tells the agent when not to expect this tool to act. No named alternative tool is offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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