Gemini Prompt With Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that memory_paths override as 'high-priority context' and that the run is non-interactive, which is useful. However, it is silent on the safety-relevant parameters yolo, approval_mode, checkpointing, and timeout_s, so the agent cannot gauge autonomy or side effects.

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?

Two tight lines that front-load the core action, with the parameter notes as crisp bullets. No filler. Slightly terse given the parameter breadth, but well-structured.

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 for a 10-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, covering only 2 parameters leaves the definition materially incomplete, especially around the autonomy controls (yolo, approval_mode) an agent would need before invoking it.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains only memory_paths and attachments, leaving 8 of 10 parameters (yolo, approval_mode, model, timeout_s, extra_args, include_dirs, checkpointing, prompt) completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific compound action (inject memory_paths as high-priority context, then run the prompt non-interactively) on a named resource. The 'with_memory' framing distinguishes it conceptually from the plain gemini_prompt sibling, but the description never names that sibling explicitly to confirm the 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 clarifies that memory_paths are treated as authoritative context, which hints at when this tool is preferred, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never contrasts it with gemini_prompt or gemini_prompt_plus. Nothing tells the agent which sibling to pick.

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