Gemini Prompt Plus

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 does disclose the approval_mode options (default|auto_edit|yolo), which hints that the tool can trigger edits requiring approval, but it never states the side effects of yolo/auto_edit, whether it writes files, or what permissions are needed — significant gaps for a CLI-invoking mutation-capable tool.

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 bullet format is compact and front-loads the summary line, but that line is a keyword dump ('attachments/approval/checkpoint/dirs/flags') rather than a clear sentence. The remaining text is terse and earns its place but is fragmentary.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage and only 2-3 partially covered by the description, an agent lacks enough to call this complex CLI wrapper confidently — especially regarding timeout_s, extra_args, and checkpointing.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains attachments (appended as @path) and approval_mode plus the yolo interaction, but leaves model, prompt, timeout_s, extra_args, include_dirs, and checkpointing completely undocumented.

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 says it is an 'Advanced non-interactive run with attachments/approval/checkpoint/dirs/flags', which names a mode (non-interactive run) and lists feature categories, but 'run' is a generic verb and it never states plainly that it invokes the Gemini model/CLI with a prompt. It gestures at being a richer variant of the sibling gemini_prompt without making the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over gemini_prompt, gemini_prompt_with_memory, or gemini_search, despite those siblings clearly occupying adjacent niches. The only conditional offered is internal mechanics ('if unset and yolo=True, add --yolo'), not usage guidance.

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