gemini_analyze_text_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output behavior. The agent has no indication whether this is a read-only operation or what the response format looks like, making it a black box.

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 a single sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it is arguably too terse, sacrificing helpfulness in favor of brevity. It earns its place by stating the core purpose but does not elaborate beyond that.

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 the tool's multiple analysis modes and the large number of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the different analysis types or how this tool relates to similar text-processing tools. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to provide enough context for an agent to choose it confidently.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters; it does not mention text, model, or analysis_type, nor does it expand on the allowed values. The schema already documents these parameters, so the description provides no additional semantic value.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Analyze text'), which distinguishes it from tools analyzing images, code, or documents. However, it is generic and does not specify the types of analysis (general, sentiment, tone, summary) that are defined in the schema, nor does it differentiate from other text-related tools like gemini_summarize_tool or gemini_query_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or specific use cases. An agent would be left to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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