gsa_design_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond a minimal implied read operation. It does not mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or any other behavioral trait.

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 technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than informative. It fails to earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool name, similar to the LOW calibration example.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, parameter descriptions, and meaningful usage hints, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain return values), the agent still lacks critical context about the parameter and the tool's role.

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?

The sole parameter task_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description says nothing about it. No meaning, format, or constraints are added beyond the parameter name.

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 'Return design task status' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name (gsa_design_task_status) in plain English. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like gsa_task_status or gsa_design, making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or context. The description merely states the action with no indication of appropriate scenarios.

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