ask-gemini

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'code changes,' which hints at mutation, but does not clarify whether the tool applies edits directly, requires approval, or has side effects. There is also no mention of authentication, rate limits, or safety behavior, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with minimal waste. The phrase 'massive context window' is somewhat vague and adds only general marketing value, but the structure is tight and readable.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only one sentence. It omits critical operational context such as what the response looks like, how mode/changeMode/sandbox affect behavior, when to use it versus sibling tools, and whether 'code changes' means actual file modification.

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 the input schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Query'), names the resource ('Google Gemini'), and lists concrete use cases: analysis, reasoning, architectural planning, and code changes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like gemini-plan or brainstorm, which likely share some of these 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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use ask-gemini versus alternatives. The phrase 'massive context window' implies suitability for large-context tasks, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as gemini-plan, brainstorm, or gemini-doctor.

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