gemini_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only status and its focus areas, and the schema adds that the workdir is read-only and nothing above it is read, but the description omits auth needs, cost/rate implications, and what the review returns. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the read-only trait is stated compactly. Terse, though it trades some completeness for brevity.

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 an 11-parameter review tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the role and focus but leaves behavioral details (auth, cost, return format) to the schema or unstated. Reasonable but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter (tier, model, diff, paths, checks, objective, constraints, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States that this is a review by Gemini and names its strong areas (interface contracts, error paths, state, user-facing regressions), which gives a real sense of what it does. However, it never explicitly states the verb+resource ('reviews your code/diff') nor names the sibling it complements (codex_review, gemini_analyze), so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Second review' implies it is used as a follow-up pass, and the listed strengths hint at when to prefer it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as codex_review or gemini_analyze. Usage is left to inference.

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