gsd-mcp-server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.1.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct workflow stages or resources, with clear names like gsd_add_phase, gsd_plan_phase, and gsd_verify_work. A few status-related tools (gsd_state, gsd_progress, gsd_roadmap_analyze) could be confused, but their descriptions clarify different focuses.
Naming Consistency3/5Tools consistently use the gsd_ prefix and snake_case, but verb/noun order varies (e.g., gsd_phase_complete vs. gsd_complete_milestone, gsd_todo_complete vs. gsd_check_todos). Some tools are bare nouns (gsd_state, gsd_settings) instead of verb_noun patterns, creating minor inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5With 34 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold, feeling heavy even for a comprehensive GSD workflow. The count is justified by the broad scope, but it may overwhelm agents and increase the risk of misselection.
Completeness5/5The tool set covers the full GSD lifecycle: project/milestone initialization, phase planning/execution/verification, todo management, config, git operations, shipping, debugging, and even web search. No obvious dead ends—gsd_run provides a fallback for any unexposed command.
Average 3.2/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description 'Configure...' implies mutation but provides no details about side effects, persistence, permissions, or scope. The agent gets no behavioral transparency beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, which is inherently concise, but it is an under-specified fragment. It lacks a complete sentence structure and does not earn its place by conveying enough meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's config nature and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain effects, how it differs from related settings tools, or any operational context, leaving a significant gap for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description supplies a general sense of what the tool does but does not specify how configuration is expressed, so it adds only minimal semantic value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Configure' with resources 'workflow toggles and model profile', giving a clear action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gsd_config_set or gsd_set_profile, making its specific purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the action implied by the tool name. It does not mention side effects, persistence, or scope of the switch (e.g., global vs. project-specific), leaving the agent without critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being terse. It is not a bloated description, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity, making it merely acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter with an enum, no output schema, no annotations, and a short description. The description fails to explain the profile options (e.g., what 'balanced' vs. 'budget' means) or the impact on other tools. Given the mutation-like behavior, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the 'profile' parameter with an enum and a brief description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter values (e.g., what 'inherit' means), but the schema already provides the enumeration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('model profile'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is differentiating from generic config tools, though it doesn't name alternatives. However, it lacks detail on what a 'model profile' is, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like gsd_config_set or gsd_settings. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when switching profiles is appropriate. The agent must infer from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states actions ('Archive', 'prepare') but does not explain what archiving entails, whether it is reversible, what state changes occur, or any requirements (e.g., milestone must already be complete). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse. Despite being short, it earns its place by conveying the core purpose without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in a project management workflow and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits context about when the milestone must be complete, what 'preparing for next version' involves, and any side effects on related data. The tool feels under-specified for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'version' with a clear description ('Version tag (e.g. 1.0.0)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal additional meaning, only implicitly connecting the version to the 'next version' concept, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Archive', 'prepare') and clearly identifies the resource (completed milestone) and the purpose (next version). It distinguishes from siblings like gsd_new_milestone and gsd_phase_complete by focusing on milestone archival, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly suggests use after a milestone is complete, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely action-oriented without any 'use when' or 'instead of' direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates 'read' without explaining error behavior, return format, or potential side effects, falling short of what is needed for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices informative content, preventing a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how errors are handled. It does neither, leaving the agent without essential context for a getter tool that could behave in unexpected ways for missing keys.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the single parameter 'key' with a clear description and example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read a GSD configuration value' clearly states the action (read) and the resource (GSD configuration value), distinguishing it from write operations like gsd_config_set. It is not a tautology, though it closely mirrors the tool name, and it lacks explicit scope or return details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as gsd_config_set or gsd_settings, and there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Write' which implies mutation, but it does not mention persistence, overwriting semantics, error handling, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat terse and lacks useful context, so it does not achieve a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with two well-described parameters, the description might seem sufficient, but it lacks any behavioral context, return value information, or guidance on related tools. Given the presence of gsd_config_get and similar siblings, more context is needed for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately explains the key and value formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Writes a GSD configuration value', using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from closely related siblings like gsd_config_get or gsd_set_profile, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Start a new milestone' gives no indication of side effects, state changes, required permissions, or what happens to the current milestone. The tool likely mutates state, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word carries meaning, making it highly concise and structurally optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema (1 param) and lack of output schema, the description is still too minimal. It does not explain the milestone lifecycle, when to start a new milestone, or what side effects occur. With many sibling tools, more context is needed to avoid misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the only parameter 'name' with a description ('Milestone name (e.g. v2.0)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a new milestone' uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('milestone'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gsd_complete_milestone, but the word 'new' implies creation rather than completion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and surrounding siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral expectations, but it only says 'research and create' without stating side effects, persistence, or expected output. It does not clarify whether this action is read-only, requires certain state, or modifies project files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to parse and free of extra words. However, it is under-specified, which is a tradeoff between conciseness and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description should specify what 'research' entails and what the resulting task plan looks like. It does not mention return values or how this tool fits into the workflow, leaving the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'phase' is already fully described in the schema with 'Phase number (e.g. 1)'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the word 'phase', so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Research and create') and a specific resource ('task plans for a phase'), conveying the basic function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like gsd_discuss_phase or gsd_execute_phase, though 'plan' implies a distinct role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, input context, or relationship to other phase-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Execute ad-hoc task with GSD guarantees' and gives no details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what the guarantees entail. The behavior is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no irrelevant words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a boolean 'full' parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain what 'GSD guarantees' means, what the 'full' pipeline entails, or what the return values might be. This is incomplete for a tool that likely performs significant actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'task' and 'full' have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Execute') and resource ('ad-hoc task'), which distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools. However, 'GSD guarantees' is jargon that is not explained, and the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives like gsd_run or gsd_validate, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'ad-hoc' implies a usage context (one-off tasks), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of 'use this for X, but for Y use gsd_run'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 merely says 'rapidly sketch' without explaining whether it generates files, returns HTML, opens a preview, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting valuable behavioral context, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to disclose what the tool actually returns or does. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has no idea what happens upon invocation, making the description incomplete for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single required 'idea' parameter with its own description ('UI idea to sketch'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'sketch UI/design ideas with HTML mockups'. It uses a specific verb 'sketch' with a resource and method, distinguishing it from siblings like gsd_run or gsd_validate. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternative tools, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of ideal scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. 'Throwaway experiments' hints at non-permanent actions, but it doesn't clarify what state changes occur, whether files are created, or how the evaluation phase works. The parameter description 'Skip evaluation phase' adds a hint, but the main description lacks behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action verb and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, side effects, or the evaluation phase referenced by the 'quick' parameter. An agent would not know what to expect from running it, making it under-specified for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description aligns with the parameter meanings ('throwaway experiments' matches 'idea to validate'), but it doesn't add additional context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('spike') and resource ('idea') and clarifies it involves 'throwaway experiments', which distinguishes it from more permanent execution tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate. It clearly conveys the experimental nature, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like gsd_quick or gsd_validate. It doesn't state prerequisites, conditions, or when to avoid it. The 'quick' parameter hints at an evaluation phase, but the description doesn't explain when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'validation checks' and omits important context such as the repair capability (which can modify state), potential side effects, or what the output/return value looks like. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Run GSD validation checks (consistency, health, agents)'. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with an optional repair action and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what happens when a check fails, how to interpret results, or the implications of the repair flag. The schema's enum descriptions help, but the overall behavioral context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'check' (enum) and 'repair' documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating the enum options in parentheses. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'GSD validation checks' and enumerates the specific check types (consistency, health, agents). It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like gsd_verify_work or gsd_debug.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as gsd_verify_work might overlap, but no differentiation is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 not mention whether the operation is safe, what side effects occur, how the 'conversational' aspect unfolds, or what the return format looks like. The word 'Verify' implies a check, but nothing explicit is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of eight words. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what does 'conversational UAT' entail, how are results delivered, and what is the expected interaction pattern? The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool that appears to involve an interactive workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'phase' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely references 'phase work' which maps to the parameter. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('phase work against goals'), and the phrase 'conversational UAT' adds a distinct method. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like gsd_validate or gsd_audit_uat, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its role among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
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 only says 'Run' without mentioning side effects, permissions, output handling, or error behavior, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and provides a helpful pointer to the command list. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a generic runner with no output schema, but the description does not mention what the response looks like, whether output is streamed, or how errors are reported. Given the open-ended nature of running arbitrary commands, this missing context leaves agents without crucial expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full description of the single parameter (command) with the 'without /gsd- prefix' detail, yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs any GSD command directly, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('GSD command'). It also references gsd://help for the full list, helping distinguish this universal runner from the many specific sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools. It implies it is a direct fallback but provides no guidance on preferring specific tools when available or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it commits to git, a mutating action, but does not mention whether files are required, how staging works, whether history is rewritten, or any side effects. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about important operational behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It immediately states the tool's function, making it easy to scan. There is no unnecessary detail, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to be fully contextual. It does not explain what 'planning documents' refers to, what happens when 'files' is omitted, or expected output or failure modes. While the schema covers parameters, the overall usage context is incomplete, making this description insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'files' and 'message' are described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the word 'planning documents', which slightly hints at which files to commit but does not clarify the optionality or behavior of the parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Commit planning documents to git' clearly identifies the action (commit), the target (planning documents), and the destination (git). This verb+resource+destination structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate, and there is no ambiguity about the core operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or provide exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. A user must infer usage from the tool name and description without further context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'full roadmap analysis' and 'disk status,' but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any), what constitutes 'full,' or what the output format is. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves gaps: what does 'full roadmap analysis' include, and what does 'disk status' mean exactly? Given the lack of annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('analysis') and resource ('roadmap') with a specific detail ('disk status for each phase'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gsd_progress or gsd_state by focusing on disk status, though 'full analysis' remains somewhat vague on what exactly is analyzed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsd_progress or gsd_state, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 only says 'Create templates' without mentioning side effects, whether existing files are overwritten, directory creation, or any prerequisites. For a scaffold tool that creates files, this significant gap in understanding what actually happens is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good schema coverage, the description lacks any behavioral or workflow context. It doesn't explain what the generated templates look like, what the output is, or how this fits into the GSD process. For a tool that creates files, this is under-specified, especially with no output schema to fill the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (name, type, phase) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. The listed template types in the description duplicate the enum values in 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'GSD document templates' and explicitly lists the four template types (context, uat, verification, phase-dir). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate, which perform different actions. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about the workflow. It simply states the action without helping the agent decide between gsd_scaffold and other GSD tools. This is a clear case of no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not mention side effects, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or what happens after completion. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one param and no output schema, but the description lacks any behavioral context or usage guidelines. It does not clarify return values, side effects, or how this tool fits with related operations, leaving an agent under-informed for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description 'Mark a todo as completed' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema's 'filename' parameter description already provides, so no bonus is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Mark as completed') and resource ('a todo'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsd_add_todo (add), gsd_check_todos (check/list), and gsd_phase_complete (complete a phase). The resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing it within the larger workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the read-only action 'List' but does not clarify what determines 'pending', whether results are ordered, or how the optional area filter behaves. It also omits any edge-case or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise phrase that immediately communicates the tool's function. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant words, and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not define what 'pending' means, whether results are sorted, or how the area filter affects the output. This is sufficient for a very simple tool but lacks helpful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'area' with the description 'Optional area filter'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the action itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'pending todos', making its function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gsd_add_todo and gsd_todo_complete, which handle adding and completing todos respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about its role in the workflow. It is purely a functional statement without any situational cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 add one behavioral trait: 'persistent state across context resets', which informs the agent that state is retained across resets. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files or external systems), permissions needed, or any other behavioral nuances, leaving a gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key distinguishing behavioral trait. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It states the core function and a key trait, but does not clarify the precise nature of the persistent state or what actions the debugging takes. For a simple tool, this is a minimum viable description, with room to add context about expected behavior or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'issue' with a description 'Issue description', and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information. Per the rubric, high schema coverage (100%) sets a baseline of 3 even without additional param info. The simple string parameter is adequately covered by the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Systematic debugging with persistent state across context resets' clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a debugging tool, using a specific verb-like noun ('debugging') and indicating a resource ('issue') implicitly. It distinguishes itself from siblings by adding the unique trait of persistent state. However, it doesn't explicitly name the input resource (issue) or fully elaborate on the scope of debugging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many gsd_* siblings. It only implies usage for debugging tasks with persistent state, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or mention alternative tools for other scenarios. This is minimal guidance at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating the roadmap, which is a useful side-effect, but it does not explain whether the action is reversible, if any validations occur, or what happens to related phases or todos. For a mutation tool, this is minimal and insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the primary action and includes a key side effect. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states the core action and side effect. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., phase must be in progress) or post-conditions (e.g., how the roadmap changes), which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter with a clear description ('Phase number to complete') and constraints (integer, >0). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark a phase as complete') and the resource ('phase'), plus an additional outcome ('update roadmap'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_complete_milestone, which targets a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsd_complete_milestone or gsd_execute_phase. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the config requirement but omits important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication details, error handling, or the structure of results. This is minimal transparency for a web search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality and a key prerequisite in a front-loaded manner. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic action but lacks information about return values, pagination, error cases, or result format. For a straightforward search tool, this is minimally viable but leaves some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for query, limit, and freshness. The tool description adds no further explanation about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a web search via the Brave API, using the specific verb 'Search' and naming the resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are primarily project management operations rather than web searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions a prerequisite (requires GSD Brave config) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only says 'capture' decisions, which hints at state modification but does not explain side effects, persistence, or any prerequisites. The lack of disclosure beyond the verb is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to explain what 'capture' entails—whether it persists, what it returns, or how it relates to subsequent planning. It is too minimal for a tool that likely affects project state, especially given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the 'phase' parameter is described as 'Phase number (e.g. 1)'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('capture') and resource ('implementation decisions') and situates the tool in a workflow ('before planning a phase'), which makes its purpose clear. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling tools like gsd_plan_phase, but the sequencing cue helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear contextual trigger: use it before planning a phase. This implies the appropriate point in the workflow, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'in parallel waves' as a behavioral trait beyond the tool name, giving the agent awareness of concurrency. However, it does not disclose side effects, failure handling, or return values. With no annotations, this is partial but non-trivial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and the concise phrasing is effective for a tool with a simple one-parameter schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain what 'execute' entails, what a 'wave' is, what prerequisites exist, or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving significant ambiguity about the operation's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'phase' is already well-documented in the input schema with its own description. The tool description only reuses the concept without adding additional semantic detail, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'execute' with a clear resource ('all plans for a phase') and adds execution style ('in parallel waves'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_plan_phase (planning) and gsd_phase_complete (completion).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions; the description only states the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'parallel explore agents' without explaining side effects, output format, or whether it modifies anything. The agent cannot tell if this is a read-only analysis or if it changes project state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of eight words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently without filler, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the analysis produces and any prerequisites, but it only states the high-level action. The tool's behavior and result are underspecified, making it difficult for an agent to know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to provide. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource 'existing codebase' and a distinctive method 'parallel explore agents'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate, which focus on execution and validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action without any context about prerequisites, expected outcomes, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing prerequisites (e.g., an active milestone), side effects, idempotency, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the lack of annotations and minimal description leaves gaps around prerequisites and behavior. It's adequate for basic comprehension but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter ('description' string) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Add), the resource (phase), and the specific location (end of current milestone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_insert_phase, which likely inserts at a different position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'to end of current milestone', indicating it's for appending a phase. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the safety context. 'Scan' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe auth requirements, side effects, or what happens if unresolved items are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters, but the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description should clarify what the scan returns or whether it is safe. It does not explain the output format or confirm that it is non-mutating, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100% and no parameter details are needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, but that is acceptable given there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('scan') with a clear resource ('all phases') and outcome ('unresolved UAT/verification items'). It distinguishes this from siblings like gsd_validate or gsd_progress by focusing on an audit across phases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit comparisons with sibling audit/validation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 only says 'Manage' without explaining side effects, read/write behavior, or what 'status' returns. The schema hints at actions (list/create/status) but the description doesn't elaborate on mutation or outcomes, leaving the agent uncertain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key concept. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema (2 params, enum) and no output schema. The description gives high-level context but omits behavioral details like return values or implications of create vs status. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds general context about workstreams but does not clarify when 'name' is required or how 'action' values differ, which the schema already partially provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool manages parallel workspaces for concurrent milestones, which clearly identifies a specific resource ('parallel workspaces') and purpose. Though 'manage' is broad, it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate by focusing on workstreams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for concurrent milestones' provides clear context on when to use this tool: when handling parallel workstreams during concurrent milestone work. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to guide the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (capture as todo) but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or reversibility. For a tool that presumably mutates a todo list, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and what input it takes. The sibling context helps disambiguate, and the description is sufficient for a basic add operation. However, a note on where the todo gets stored or how it integrates with the conversation context would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'description' is documented as 'Todo description'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Capture') and identifies the resource ('idea or task as todo') and scope ('from current conversation'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like gsd_todo_complete (which completes a todo) and gsd_check_todos (which lists todos).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when you want to preserve an idea or task from the current conversation as a todo. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using gsd_todo_complete for marking items done or gsd_check_todos for reviewing existing todos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. 'List all phases' implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what fields are returned, ordering, filtering, or any side effects. Minimal behavior is conveyed beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain what a 'phase' includes, the return format, whether the list is ordered, or any limits. Given the many sibling tools, more detail is needed for the agent to know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('phases from the roadmap'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsd_add_phase and gsd_insert_phase. The purpose is unmistakably to retrieve all phases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing phases but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsd_progress, gsd_state, or gsd_roadmap_analyze. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so it meets only the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Initialize' and 'run once per project', without explaining what files, configs, or state changes occur, whether re-running is safe, or what prerequisites are needed. This is a minimal behavioral hint at best.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what initialization entails and any important side effects. It only provides purpose and a run-once constraint, leaving gaps around what actually happens when the tool is invoked and what the agent should expect afterward. For a state-changing tool, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents both parameters (name and optional description), so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Initialize a new GSD project'), making the action unambiguous. The parenthetical 'run once per project' adds lifecycle context that distinguishes this project-level tool from sibling tools like gsd_new_milestone or gsd_add_phase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'run once per project' provides clear context that this tool is meant for the initial setup of a project. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the once-per-project lifecycle guidance is a clear usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a PR (a write operation), but it doesn't mention required permissions, side effects like pushing branches, failure conditions if the phase isn't complete, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 core action and context efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description doesn't explain side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior. For a PR-creation tool, this leaves the agent without critical operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'phase' parameter with a clear description ('Phase number to ship'). The tool description adds a contextual hint ('completed phase work') but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('PR') with a contextual qualifier ('from completed phase work'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsd_commit or gsd_phase_complete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from completed phase work' provides clear context for when to use this tool—after a phase has been completed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though sibling names imply workflow steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' state, which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that there are no side effects, whether a project must be initialized, or what happens if no project exists. This lack of detail leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the resource ('current GSD project state'). It includes only essential information and wastes no words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only nature), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what it returns. However, it omits potential error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized project), which would make it fully complete. Still, it is largely sufficient for the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by enumerating the specific state elements returned, which helps the agent understand what will be provided without needing parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('current GSD project state'), and the key output components ('phase, milestone, next steps'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like gsd_progress or gsd_roadmap_analyze, which focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The sibling list includes gsd_progress and gsd_roadmap_analyze, which might overlap, but no comparison or exclusion criteria are given. Users are left to infer usage from the tool name and general context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints that insertion creates a 'decimal phase' (implying no renumbering of existing phases), but it does not explain side effects, persistence, or how the decimal number is determined. The tool is a mutation, yet the description offers minimal insight into consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core action and purpose. There is zero wasted content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks important behavioral context, such as whether existing phase numbers are altered, what the resulting phase number looks like, or any prerequisites. The description is minimally viable but leaves gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify the relationship between 'after' and the decimal phase, nor does it elaborate on the description parameter. The schema already documents both parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('insert') and resource ('phase'), with a clear scope ('between existing phases') and mechanism ('as decimal phase'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_add_phase, which likely appends phases at the end.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'between existing phases' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when urgent work must be slotted into an existing sequence rather than appended. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently distinct from siblings like gsd_add_phase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Show', which suggests a read-only behavior, but it does not disclose whether the tool depends on existing lifecycle state, how it computes the next step, or what happens if no next step exists. This lack of specificity leaves the agent with limited behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Show') and directly states the output concept ('what step to run next'). Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain the expected format of the response, any preconditions (e.g., must have an active GSD project), or guidance on interpreting the step. These gaps are relevant for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and an empty schema, schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. It adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show what step to run next in the GSD lifecycle' uses a specific verb ('Show') and a distinct resource ('what step to run next') with context (GSD lifecycle). This differentiates it from siblings that execute, validate, or configure steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs to know the next lifecycle step, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsd_run or gsd_validate. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/M0-AR/gsd-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server