gsa_case_perm_anal_factor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: 'Get' weakly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but return shape, error behavior, and any case/permutation state requirements are unstated. There is an output schema, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond it.

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?

A single eight-word sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is padded, yet nothing earns its place beyond the bare verb-resource statement.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema documentation, the definition is inadequate. It omits parameter semantics, sibling differentiation, and any behavioral detail, leaving the output schema to do work the description should support.

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?

Four required parameters (caseop, case_id, perm, analref) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies zero meaning for any of them. It does not say what caseop values are valid, how perm relates to case_id, or what analref references, so the agent cannot construct a correct call from the definition.

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?

States a verb ('Get') and a resource ('analysis factor for a case permutation'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'analysis factor' and 'case permutation' are unexplained domain jargon, and the description does nothing to distinguish it from siblings gsa_case_perm_desc, gsa_case_perm_string, and gsa_case_num_perm. Purpose is only implied, not sharp.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the three sibling permutation tools that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right call for retrieving permutation-related data.

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