gsa_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare purpose: no indication of whether the task is asynchronous, whether task_id must come from an earlier call, or what a terminal vs. in-progress status looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than intentional economy.

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 for a 1-param, no-annotation tool, the description should at least identify the task family and how task_id is sourced; that context is absent.

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?

One required integer task_id with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning about what task_id refers to or how it is obtained. With no params the baseline would be 4, but here the single undocumented parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and resource (analysis task status), so the purpose is discernible. However, it is near-tautological with the tool name and does not distinguish it from the closely-named sibling gsa_design_task_status, leaving ambiguity about which status is returned.

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 gsa_design_task_status, gsa_case_task, or gsa_analyse. The agent is left to infer applicability from the name alone.

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