gsd_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'validation checks' and omits important context such as the repair capability (which can modify state), potential side effects, or what the output/return value looks like. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Run GSD validation checks (consistency, health, agents)'. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 tool with an optional repair action and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what happens when a check fails, how to interpret results, or the implications of the repair flag. The schema's enum descriptions help, but the overall behavioral context is incomplete.

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%, with both 'check' (enum) and 'repair' documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating the enum options in parentheses. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'GSD validation checks' and enumerates the specific check types (consistency, health, agents). It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like gsd_verify_work or gsd_debug.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as gsd_verify_work might overlap, but no differentiation is offered.

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