Inspect Gemini CLI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' suggests a read-only inspection behavior, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, whether any commands are executed, or whether the optional model-reported summary incurs extra cost or latency. It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, tight sentence that enumerates the output categories up front and wastes no words. It is easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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?

The output schema is present, no parameters are required, and the description clearly enumerates the returned information categories. It could note that timeoutMs applies to each inspection command or clarify the side-effect-free nature, but overall the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters already have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description only adds a passing reference to the model-reported tool summary and does not meaningfully extend the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource scope: Gemini CLI commands, extensions, skills, configured MCP servers, and an optional model-reported tool summary. This fully distinguishes it from the execute* sibling tools, which focus on running tasks.

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 that this tool is for inspection rather than execution, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over the sibling tools or lists any exclusion conditions. An agent would have to infer the intended usage from the verb and resource enumeration.

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