gsd_progress

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.