gemini-researcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (mapping structure and understanding files/modules) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, potential performance considerations, or error conditions. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 well-structured - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with a concrete example. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the most important information (what it does) comes first.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the output format or important behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of analyzing directory structures, more information about what 'understanding' means would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it provides an example with specific values but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 specific verbs ('Map repository structure' and 'understand what each file/module does') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying when it's preferred ('when questions ask about project organization or 'what's in this directory''). It goes beyond restating the name to explain the actual function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Preferred when questions ask about project organization or 'what's in this directory'') and provides a concrete example. While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, the clear context and example provide strong guidance for appropriate usage scenarios.

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