gsa_case_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the case lacks a parent task, error behavior, or any side effects. Only the crudest behavioral hint (a return action) is present.

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 8-word sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could do more within its size.

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 an output schema so return structure need not be explained in the description. However, for a case-inspection operation with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is barely sufficient. It covers the basic read but omits any context an agent would need to choose it confidently.

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?

There is one required parameter (case_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain the parameter at all, but with only a single integer case identifier its meaning is relatively self-evident from the name. This is the baseline 3 for a simple param.

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?

It states a verb (return) and a resource (parent analysis task for an analysis case), so the basic operation is clear. But without differentiation from siblings like gsa_case_results_exist or gsa_case_num_perm, and lacking specifics about what 'parent analysis task' entails, purpose is only roughly clear.

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 description provides no indication of when to use this tool versus related case-inspection tools. With many siblings operating on cases (perm desc/string, results_exist, etc.), there is no guidance on selection or context.

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