ask-gemini

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

Annotations already indicate read-only. Description adds 'single-shot' advisory context. No mention of rate limits, auth, or side effects beyond the annotation.

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 with no redundancy. Could add more detail without becoming verbose, but current length is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 6 parameters and important details like reasoningEffort enums and file attachments, the description lacks guidance on how to use these features, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Only explains the `expert` parameter briefly. With 0% schema coverage, most parameters (prompt, developerInstructions, cwd, reasoningEffort, files) are left unexplained, making agent invocation ambiguous.

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 the tool sends a single-shot advisory query to Gemini. However, among siblings like ask-gpt and ask-grok, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use which provider.

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?

Implies use for a Gemini-based second opinion, but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives like ask-gpt, ask-all, or criteria for selection.

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