gsd_state

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' state, which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that there are no side effects, whether a project must be initialized, or what happens if no project exists. This lack of detail leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, tightly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the resource ('current GSD project state'). It includes only essential information and wastes no words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only nature), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what it returns. However, it omits potential error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized project), which would make it fully complete. Still, it is largely sufficient for the tool's low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by enumerating the specific state elements returned, which helps the agent understand what will be provided without needing parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('current GSD project state'), and the key output components ('phase, milestone, next steps'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like gsd_progress or gsd_roadmap_analyze, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The sibling list includes gsd_progress and gsd_roadmap_analyze, which might overlap, but no comparison or exclusion criteria are given. Users are left to infer usage from the tool name and general context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.