Ask Gemini any follow-up about an analyzed video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the ability to ask questions and inspect timestamps, but does not disclose any side effects, conversation state, rate limits, or whether this is purely a read operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that may rely on prior analysis context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundant wording and is highly scannable.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and usage context. However, it does not explain the response format, potential errors, or whether the conversation context persists, which would be useful for an AI agent deciding whether to use it. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, with each parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description adds context about the purpose (follow-up questions) but does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('ask', 'inspect') with a clear resource ('previously analyzed video') and lists concrete use cases (new questions, different detail, specific timestamp). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying to use this instead of re-downloading or uploading the video.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for follow-up questions on an already analyzed video, and explicitly advises against downloading/uploading again. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for new videos), so it falls just short of full guidance.

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