gsa_design

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

With no annotations and a sparse description, the behavioral burden is entirely on the description, which provides none. It doesn't state what the tool computes, whether it mutates model state, prerequisites, or side effects.

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 but under-specified rather than concise. It doesn't front-load useful information and leaves the reader with more questions.

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 needn't be explained, but the description fails to cover inputs, behavior, or usage for a mutation/analysis tool with zero schema documentation. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters (task, option) are integers with no enum or description. The description says 'design option enum value' but the schema shows a plain integer with no enumeration, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 ('design task') and mentions 'design option enum value' without clarifying what a design task actually does in GSA. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like gsa_analyse or gsa_case_task, making it nearly tautological.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsa_analyse, gsa_case_task, or gsa_design_task_status. The agent has no context for selection.

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