content_analyze

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds valuable context that it 'Uses Gemini's structured output' revealing the backend LLM and response format behavior. Also notes 'reliable JSON responses' which indicates deterministic output behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Uses standard Google-style docstring format (Args/Returns) that is immediately scannable. Front-loads the critical mutual exclusivity constraint ('exactly one of') before backend details. No redundant text; every sentence conveys unique information about usage or behavior.

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 83% parameter coverage, the description appropriately covers return values ('Dict matching ContentResult...') and all 6 parameters. The mutual exclusivity constraint for inputs is explicitly documented, addressing the main complexity of this tool.

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 83% schema coverage, the baseline is high. The Args section compensates for the missing schema description on 'thinking_level' by specifying it controls 'Gemini thinking depth.' It also reinforces semantics for other parameters, adding clarity that file_path accepts 'PDF or text' specifically.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyze') and clear resource scope ('content (file, URL, or text)'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like content_batch_analyze (implied by 'exactly one' input constraint) and video_analyze (generic content vs. video-specific).

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?

Explicitly states the critical constraint 'Provide exactly one of file_path, url, or text' and clarifies to use custom output_schema for response shape control. Lacks explicit naming of siblings (e.g., 'use content_batch_analyze for multiple files') but implies single-item usage clearly.

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