gemini-help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately states that the tool prints the CLI's --help text and mentions the two possible CLIs, 'agy or gemini', which is useful transparency. It does not discuss output size or failure modes, but for a zero-argument read-only help tool this is a minor omission.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Print'), names the resource, and gives the purpose, all in one efficient, well-structured statement.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is printed, which CLI's help text is shown, and why the agent would call it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool needs no user input and instead introspects the 'active backend CLI', which helps the agent understand that invocation is automatic and requires no configuration.

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 and resource: 'Print the active backend CLI's own --help text (agy or gemini)'. It also immediately explains the purpose, 'to see which flags the installed version supports', making the tool's role clear and distinct from the gemini-* sibling commands.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to discover which flags the installed backend CLI supports. It does not name an alternative or exclusion explicitly, but no sibling provides the same help/introspection function, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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