gemini_analyze_code_tool

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. 'Analyze code' is behaviorally neutral and doesn't disclose side effects (though seemingly none), output format, response size, or limits. It's not misleading, but provides zero transparency value. Annotation contradiction: false.

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?

At exactly 5 words, it's undeniably short and contains no filler. However, 'with Gemini' is redundant (the tool is already in the Gemini family and the name confirms it), reducing effective content to 2 words. Brief but not effectively so.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema and 38 siblings, this description is severely under-specified. The 'focus' parameter implies meaningful capability (security, performance, bugs) that could clarify 'analysis', but the description fails to surface this. The tool name does most of the conceptual heavy lifting.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but doesn't need to — the schema fully documents 'code', 'focus', 'model', and 'language' including defaults and the focus enum values.

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 'Analyze code with Gemini' is essentially a rewording of the tool name itself, making it a tautology. It provides no scope details (e.g., what aspects of code are analyzed, what the output represents) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like gemini_analyze_text_tool or gemini_run_code_tool.

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 offers zero guidance on when to use this tool versus its 30+ siblings. It doesn't mention that this is for static analysis rather than execution, and explicitly fails to state that code execution should go to gemini_run_code_tool.

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