gemini_query

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does reveal that this is a local CLI tool capable of web searches and AI-based analysis, hinting at network usage and nondeterministic behavior. Yet it omits key operational details such as latency, side effects, output format, error handling, or rate limits, making transparency only partial.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a numbered list of use cases. While listing five use cases makes it somewhat verbose, every item adds distinct value and contributes to the reader's understanding.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should cover return behavior, errors, or operational risk, but it does not. It adequately explains the tool's intended use cases and parameters, yet for an AI-querying tool this is a notable gap that leaves the agent partially uninformed about what to expect after 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'prompt' and 'model' parameters already well-documented in the schema, including types, defaults, constraints, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Execute a query using the local Gemini CLI tool.' It then elaborates with five concrete use cases, making the tool's scope and intent unmistakable even without sibling tools for comparison.

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 'Best used for' section provides explicit contexts for use, covering codebase analysis, web searches, alternative perspectives, research, and code reviews. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or any alternative approaches, so it falls short of the full 5 criteria.

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