gsd_verify_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is safe, what side effects occur, how the 'conversational' aspect unfolds, or what the return format looks like. The word 'Verify' implies a check, but nothing explicit is disclosed.

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 of eight words. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what does 'conversational UAT' entail, how are results delivered, and what is the expected interaction pattern? The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool that appears to involve an interactive workflow.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'phase' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely references 'phase work' which maps to the parameter. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('phase work against goals'), and the phrase 'conversational UAT' adds a distinct method. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like gsd_validate or gsd_audit_uat, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its role among sibling tools.

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