gsa_case_perm_desc

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 discloses nothing: not whether the underlying case must be open, not whether the caseop/perm combination must already exist, not what errors occur on bad input. 'Get' implies read-only, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded with the verb, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy – there is no real content to be concise about.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a three-parameter required tool with 0% param documentation, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description leaves essentially everything to guesswork.

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 0% and none of the three parameters (caseop, case_id, perm) are documented in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all – an agent must guess the meaning and domain of each required argument.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Get case permutation description' for gsa_case_perm_desc) – a tautology. It does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling gsa_case_perm_string, nor does it clarify what a 'permutation' or 'description' actually refers to in this domain.

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 alternatives named, no prerequisites stated. The near-identical sibling gsa_case_perm_string is left completely unaddressed, so an agent cannot tell which of the pair it should call.

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