gemini_chat_new

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. However, it only states the basic action, with no mention of side effects (e.g., conversation persistence), auth needs, or rate limits. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what the name already implies.

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, compact sentence that communicates the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, though it could benefit from slightly more detail on usage.

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?

With an output schema present and a well-covered input schema, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple creation tool. However, it omits the persistent side effect of creating a stored conversation and any caveats, which would be valuable given the absence of annotations.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with thorough descriptions for each parameter (label format, model options, thinking mode). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 the action: create a new conversation, send the prompt, and return a response. The use of '新規' (new) distinguishes it from sibling tools like gemini_chat_continue, which handles existing conversations.

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 tool's name and the phrase '新規 conversation' imply it is for starting fresh conversations, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over gemini_chat_continue or mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than clearly spelled out.

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