ask-gemini

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a 'text-wrapped JSON envelope { result }' and that it calls an external provider with rate limits. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences front-loading the purpose and key guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety context, the description covers return format, rate limits, and single-shot nature. It does not detail error handling or pagination, but for a single-shot advisory tool this is sufficient.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'expert' applies personas, 'developerInstructions' overrides built-in persona, and that 'reasoningEffort' is ignored for Gemini. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches understanding of parameter behavior.

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 clearly states 'Single-provider second opinion via gemini (advisory, single-shot)' which includes a specific verb (ask/consult), resource (gemini), and scope (single-provider). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask-all, ask-gpt, etc. by emphasizing it is only for Gemini.

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 advises passing 'expert' for personas and notes that for named expert tools the tool's own persona wins. It also mentions rate limits and that reasoningEffort is ignored for Gemini, providing context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though it is implied by the single-provider nature.

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