gsd_discuss_phase

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.