gsd_workstreams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Manage' without explaining side effects, read/write behavior, or what 'status' returns. The schema hints at actions (list/create/status) but the description doesn't elaborate on mutation or outcomes, leaving the agent uncertain.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key concept. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple schema (2 params, enum) and no output schema. The description gives high-level context but omits behavioral details like return values or implications of create vs status. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds general context about workstreams but does not clarify when 'name' is required or how 'action' values differ, which the schema already partially provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool manages parallel workspaces for concurrent milestones, which clearly identifies a specific resource ('parallel workspaces') and purpose. Though 'manage' is broad, it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate by focusing on workstreams.

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 phrase 'for concurrent milestones' provides clear context on when to use this tool: when handling parallel workstreams during concurrent milestone work. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to guide the agent.

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