gsd_quick

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.