gemini_create_cache_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the high-level purpose but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether creation is immediate, how errors surface, permission requirements, or any side effects. The phrase 'upload content once' hints at a write operation but is not detailed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and zero extraneous text. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite full schema coverage and an output schema, the description leaves ambiguity about how to actually provide the content (via content or file_path) and what the expected output is. It does not mention that either content or file_path should be set, nor does it hint at the ttl_minutes or display_name defaults. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the relationship between content and file_path or the consequences of leaving them null, which could confuse an agent.

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 creates a content cache for repeated queries, which distinguishes it from sibling cache tools (query, list, delete). However, it does not explicitly mention the dual input methods (content vs file_path) or the model parameter, so it lacks some specificity.

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?

It implies usage for repeated queries by saying 'query it multiple times without re-sending', but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other cache tools or provide exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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