gemini_upload_file

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

The description claims to upload a file, which is a write operation, but the annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. This misleads the agent about the tool's side effects. Beyond this, the description only adds basic return info and default model, but fails to disclose rate limits, file size constraints, or error handling.

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 description is well-structured with separate args and returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and remains concise, though the args section could be slightly streamlined.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the basic workflow. However, it omits important contextual details like supported file formats, size limits, and error handling, which are critical for robust agent usage.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides essential meaning for all three parameters, including the default for model. However, the model parameter's default in the schema is null, while the description states a specific model name ('gemini-3.0-flash'), creating a discrepancy that could confuse agents.

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 clearly states the verb 'upload' with the resource 'file to Gemini' and specifies the action of asking a question. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gemini_chat or gemini_analyze_url, which handle different modalities.

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 implicitly suggests using the tool when a file needs analysis, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not conditions. The purpose is clear enough from context, but explicit usage guidance is missing.

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