gsa_new_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it is almost silent. It does not say whether the current model is discarded, whether unsaved work is lost, whether a blank model is created or a dialog invoked, or what state results — all critical for a model-lifecycle operation adjacent to gsa_close and gsa_save.

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 short sentence is structurally clean and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, at four words it is under-specified rather than truly concise, leaving the sentence load-bearing for nothing beyond restating the name.

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 for a model-lifecycle tool with no annotations and lifecycle siblings like gsa_open/gsa_save/gsa_close, the description omits the one thing an agent needs: what happens to the current model and what constitutes a valid call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor harms here.

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 verb 'Open' plus resource 'GSA model' is identifiable, but 'new' is ambiguous: the tool name (gsa_new_file) signals creating a blank model while the description says 'Open', which is the verb used by the sibling gsa_open. An agent cannot confidently tell whether this creates a fresh model or opens one, so it sits at vague-but-recognizable (3).

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 statement of when to use this instead of gsa_open, gsa_save, or gsa_close, and no prerequisite or state condition. The sibling list makes the alternative (gsa_open for existing files) obvious, but the description supplies no routing guidance at all.

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