from_files

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this performs a read-only vision operation, that Gemini is the underlying model, whether it needs connectivity/auth, how it handles the 'compact' parameter (which affects history), or what the output looks like. The word 'describe' implies read-only but nothing is explicitly disclosed.

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 a single short sentence, which is appropriately brief for an alias tool. However, it is so short it borders on under-specification — it fronts the alias relationship but contains zero substantive standalone guidance. It's concise, but conciseness without content is closer to under-specification than efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% param coverage, the tool needs more because it operates in a crowded sibling family (from_files, from_resources, multiple _mixed variants). The description does not explain how this alias differs from using vision_from_files directly, and there is an unused 'compact' parameter whose behavioral effect is entirely unexplained. For a tool with many similar siblings, this is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters (type, paths, prompt, compact). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when schema covers params fully, and the description provides no incremental value here.

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 is almost entirely a tautology — it simply states 'Alias for vision_from_files — describe multiple files using Gemini.' It does state the purpose (describe multiple files) but only by referencing a sibling tool. It adds no independent verb+resource clarity of its own and relies entirely on the reader knowing what vision_from_files does. The purpose is technically present but thin and derivative.

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 names vision_from_files as the canonical tool, implying this is an alias, but it gives no guidance on when to use this alias vs the direct tool or the many sibling variants (from_file, from_files_mixed, from_resources, etc.). No context about when this is preferred, what makes it an alias worth using, or when NOT to use it.

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