gemini-models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Lists' signals a read-only operation, and 'active backend status' discloses that it queries live backend state. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool these are low-risk omissions.

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 efficient sentence that fronts the core action ('Lists available Gemini models') and then packs the important output dimensions into a compact list. Every phrase adds information without repetition or filler.

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 simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool returns: models, defaults, reasoning capabilities, and backend status. It could add a bit more about output format or how status is represented, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 ('Lists') and identifies a distinct resource ('available Gemini models'), then enumerates the exact content categories returned: default selections, reasoning capabilities, and active backend status. This clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings like ask-gemini, gemini-plan, and gemini-image.

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 makes the use context clear: an agent should call this when it needs to know which Gemini models are available, which are defaults, what reasoning capabilities exist, or whether the backend is active. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to cover model discovery, so the context is sufficient.

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