gemini-researcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as verifying existence and accessibility, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling beyond the mentioned error, or what 'accessible' entails (e.g., read permissions). This leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and an example, all in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error conditions. For a tool with one parameter and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but could be more complete by explaining what 'verify' outputs or handles in edge cases.

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 the 'paths' parameter as an array of strings. The description adds an example showing usage with specific file paths, which provides practical context but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('file paths'), explaining it checks for existence and accessibility before analysis. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_directory' or 'fetch_chunk' by focusing on validation rather than analysis or data retrieval.

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: 'when uncertain about path correctness or troubleshooting 'PATH_NOT_ALLOWED' errors.' This provides clear context for usage, including a specific error scenario, without needing to reference alternatives since the purpose is distinct from sibling tools.

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