gemini_craft_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a guide that suggests commands, which implies it's a read-only advisory tool, but it doesn't explicitly state this or cover other behavioral aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some context about executing commands yourself, but overall behavioral transparency is limited.

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 moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. It starts with a clear purpose statement, but the bulleted list and final sentence add detail that, while informative, might be verbose. Some sentences, like 'How to interpret and build on gemini's responses,' could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it's adequate but not optimally structured for quick scanning.

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 complexity (advisory with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks depth. It explains the tool's role in prompt crafting and execution context, but doesn't cover expected outputs, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool without structured behavioral data, this leaves gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (step_description and context). The description doesn't add any specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips for the parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: to help write better prompts for Gemini by suggesting effective commands and context. It specifies the verb 'guides you on crafting' and resource 'effective bash commands for gemini collaboration', making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like gemini_iterate_analysis or gemini_synthesize_findings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context through phrases like 'guides you on crafting effective bash commands for gemini collaboration' and 'You execute the suggested commands yourself using your bash tools,' suggesting this is for prompt crafting guidance rather than direct execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_plan_analysis or gemini_synthesize_findings, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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