pplx_gemini_pro_think

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'extended thinking' and cost but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, modifies data, or how it behaves in error cases. The output format is not described despite the presence of an output schema.

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 brief (one sentence) but combines two distinct pieces of information (model identity, cost). It is not front-loaded with the most critical information for tool selection. A slightly more structured approach would improve clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and moderate complexity (2 parameters, sibling variety), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, failing to equip the agent for correct invocation.

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 explain parameter meaning. It does not mention the `query` parameter or the `source_focus` parameter, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to set these values correctly.

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 identifies the model (Gemini 3.1 Pro Thinking) and notes its capability (extended thinking) and cost. However, it lacks a verb specifying the tool's primary action (e.g., 'answer', 'generate') and does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools like pplx_ask or pplx_smart_query.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context to decide between pplx_gemini_pro_think and other query or thinking tools.

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