Runs GSA structural analysis for a given task, or all tasks if the task ID is zero or less.
Analyse a task, or all tasks when task <= 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates state, what permissions are needed, or how costly it is. The parameter condition is disclosed, but operational behavior is essentially absent.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the main action and the special parameter condition efficiently. Nothing needs to be trimmed.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained here. The description does state how to invoke the all-tasks behavior, which is useful. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it remains incomplete about when and why to choose this analysis tool.
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 one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the key semantic rule: task <= 0 analyses all tasks. This is valuable information absent from the schema, though the meaning of positive task values is only implied. It compensates well for the otherwise undocumented parameter.
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 gives a verb ('Analyse') and a resource ('task'), and clarifies the all-tasks case. However, 'Analyse' is vague about what kind of analysis is performed, and it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling analysis-adjacent tools. Adequate but broadly specified.
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 only usage guidance is the parameter behavior: task <= 0 means all tasks. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the analysis scenario. This leaves the agent without routing guidance among many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.