Generate Summary

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: supported file types, that file_path is loaded server-side (bypassing MCP limits). It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or auth, but for a summarization tool these are less critical. The server-side loading detail adds value.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, many file types), the description covers most key aspects: input options, length, focus, language. However, it does not clarify mutual exclusivity of text and file_path, nor file size limits. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the types of files accepted for file_path and noting server-side loading. This enhances the agent's understanding beyond basic parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool summarizes text or local files with Gemini, listing supported file types. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_image or gemini_chat, which serve different purposes.

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 instructions on how to use the tool (provide text or file_path, choose length, optional focus/language) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies summarization tasks but lacks direct comparison with siblings like gemini_agent or chat.

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