gemini_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a 'safe arguments' mechanism but does not explain how safety is enforced, what the output looks like, or whether it is interactive—critical gaps for a process-running tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise but overly terse for a tool with six parameters, and 'safe arguments' is under-specified.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It fails to communicate side effects, the safety wrapper's behavior, or how it differs from numerous related tools in the sibling list.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the six parameters. While names like cwd, env, and args are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value in clarifying types, constraints, or the meaning of 'safe arguments' relative to the args parameter.

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 identifies a specific resource (Gemini CLI) with the verb 'Run', and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_run and claude_run. The qualifier 'with safe arguments' adds intent but is vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like start_process, codex_run, or claude_run. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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