run_gemini_coding_task

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits: 'strict execute/plan contracts', 'Git-verified commits and file scope', 'acceptance-test traceability', and 'compact responses with persisted diagnostics'. These hints about execution flow and output characteristics are helpful. However, with no annotations, the description should also cover side effects, authorization needs, or error scenarios, which are absent. The mention of contracts is vague.

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 sentence that packs key selling points succinctly. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Invoke Gemini CLI for coding'). However, for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, a structured list or brief elaboration would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, 2 required, many optional) and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It neglects to explain the plan-then-execute workflow, the necessity of allowExecution, or how mode interacts with other parameters. With sibling tools covering similar domains, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have descriptions in the schema (workspacePath, prompt, allowExecution, model). The description adds no parameter-specific detail; it lists high-level features (e.g., 'Git-verified commits') but does not map them to parameters like requireCommit or acceptanceCriteria. The agent cannot infer which parameters control these behaviors from the description alone.

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 states 'Invoke Gemini CLI for coding', which identifies the tool as launching a coding task via Gemini. It also lists supported features like execute/plan contracts, Git-verified commits, etc., making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'run_antigravity_coding_task' or 'plan_with_codex', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description only lists capabilities, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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