MCP Gemini Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Retrieves metadata,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, what the metadata includes, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter need but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or sibling differentiation. For a simple retrieval tool, it's passable but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'cacheName' fully documented in the schema (including description, pattern, and requirements). The description adds minimal value by repeating the parameter requirement and providing an example, but doesn't offer additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured schema.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('metadata for a specific cached content resource'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'gemini_listCaches' (which likely lists multiple caches vs. retrieving metadata for one), missing full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by specifying the required parameter ('Requires the unique cache name'), which suggests when to use it (when you have a specific cache ID). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'gemini_listCaches' or 'gemini_updateCache', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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