gemini_ask

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: Gemini runs in a sandbox, can read only the supplied paths and search the web, and cannot change files or run commands. It also discloses the cost/quota model (no API cost, consumes the plan's limits), which matters for how freely an agent should call it. It does not discuss latency or nondeterminism, so 4 rather than 5.

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 core routing information is front-loaded in the first two paragraphs, and the Args/Returns block is cleanly structured. The Args section repeats parameter names already visible in the schema, but in each case it attaches semantics rather than restating types, so almost every line earns its place.

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?

For a five-parameter delegation tool with no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, use cases, alternatives, sandbox constraints, quota implications, every parameter, and the return contract (answer plus a conversation_id for follow-ups). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the output schema handles return structure.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: prompt (the question or task), model (id from gemini_models with a concrete example and the default resolution rule), paths (local files or folders Gemini may read), conversation_id (continue an earlier chat), and effort (enumerated low/medium/high/xhigh/max). Every parameter gains meaning the bare schema titles do not provide.

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 and resource ('Ask Gemini a question or give it a reading task') and immediately names the execution path (Antigravity CLI on the user's Google AI Pro plan). It explicitly distinguishes itself from gemini_research (cited web sources) and gemini_code (editing a folder), so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It names concrete use cases ('a second opinion on code or a design, reviewing local files or folders passed in paths, and long reasoning') and gives explicit exclusions with named alternatives: use gemini_research for cited web research, gemini_code to let Gemini edit a folder. It also explains that conversation_id continues an earlier gemini_ask/gemini_research chat, which is when-to-use guidance for that parameter.

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