gsd_spike

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.