gsa_case_perm_string

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether 'caseop' mutates the current case operation/context, what permissions are needed, or what failure modes exist. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but the presence of a 'caseop' parameter suggests possible state mutation that is never addressed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded, so nothing is padded. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, which keeps it at a middling score: it is concise but vacuous.

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 values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: three undocumented required parameters, no annotations, no usage context, and no differentiation from the near-identical sibling tools. For a tool with this much unexplained surface, the description is inadequate.

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%: 'perm', 'caseop' and 'case_id' are bare integer/string fields with no documentation. The description does not mention any parameter, so an agent cannot know what values are valid, what 'caseop' expects, or how the three inputs relate to each other. This is the worst case for a 3-required-parameter tool.

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 has a concrete verb ('Get') and a named resource ('case permutation string'), so the mechanical purpose is stated. However, 'permutation string' is domain jargon that is not unpacked, and the description does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like gsa_case_perm_desc or gsa_case_perm_anal_factor, which appear to return related per-case quantities.

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 call this versus the closely named gsa_case_perm_desc or gsa_case_perm_anal_factor, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. whether a case must be active). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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