gk_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does offer real behavioral details: it blocks illegal phase skips and returns the allowed action list for unknown actions. However, it does not disclose whether actions mutate state, require permissions, or what side effects the assert/claim_done/rubric actions have.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and actions. Every sentence adds information, including the fallback behavior, with no filler.

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?

Although there is an output schema, the description leaves the semantics of the three actions vague: what does 'assert', 'claim_done', or 'rubric' do? It also doesn't explain what phases exist or why the phase machine is needed among the many sibling gk_* tools, so an agent would lack sufficient context to invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 schema has no descriptions or enums, so the description's mention of the three valid actions and the 'args={}' usage pattern adds essential meaning. It also tells the agent what happens on an unknown action, which helps parameter selection even though it doesn't detail individual args.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Phase machine' and lists the exact actions it supports (assert, claim_done, rubric), giving a concrete sense of its purpose. This distinguishes it from the other gk_* tools, though 'machine' is a bit jargon-heavy and the phase domain is not fully explained.

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?

It provides operational direction by instructing to pass 'action=' and 'optional args={}', and it notes that illegal Antigravity phase skips are blocked. It does not explicitly name when to use this tool over siblings or list exclusions, but the action list implies the intended use cases.

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