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 does well by stating the persistence nature ('Persists across conversations') and authentication context ('No API key needed'), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this overwrites existing snapshots, what happens on invalid input, error conditions, or storage limitations. The description adds meaningful context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the second explains what gets mapped, the third explains persistence benefits, and the fourth clarifies authentication context. Zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks important behavioral details. For a tool that creates persistent data with complex nested structures, the description should address more about error handling, data validation, overwrite behavior, and what constitutes a successful operation. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what gets returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema - it mentions 'concept-to-files map' which relates to the 'features' and 'flows' parameters, and 'project root directory' which relates to 'dir', but doesn't provide additional usage guidance, format examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Save a concept-to-files map as a persistent project snapshot') and resource ('project snapshot'), and distinguishes it from sibling get_snapshot by explaining this is the creation/writing operation while get_snapshot is the retrieval/reading operation. The phrase 'Persists across conversations — future sessions can call get_snapshot' explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Save a concept-to-files map as a persistent project snapshot') and when to use the alternative ('future sessions can call get_snapshot'). It also clarifies the prerequisite context: 'you are the LLM generating the map' indicates this should be used when the AI has analyzed and mapped the project structure.

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