gsd_plan_phase

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.