Help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns help information and hints at being a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, potential side effects, or what 'active backend' entails. This is acceptable for a simple help tool but not rich.

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?

A single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core message and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 a zero-parameter, no-output-schema help tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and its scope, though it could optionally mention that no arguments are required or expected.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by indicating the help is scoped to the active backend, which is all that is needed given no parameters exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Receive') and a concrete resource ('CLI help information'), scoped to the 'active Gemini backend'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which perform other actions like asking questions or planning.

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 phrase 'for the active Gemini backend' implies the tool is used when the agent needs CLI help related to the currently selected backend. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the usage context mostly inferred.

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