gemini_plan_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by explaining that it provides a 'roadmap' for planning and guides thinking on decomposition, order, and incremental understanding. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it has side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement. It uses bullet points efficiently to list guidance aspects without unnecessary elaboration. However, the final sentence about executing commands with bash tools could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting structure.

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 (planning multi-step analysis) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the planning function and guidance aspects but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context and usage.

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 the 'goal' parameter well-documented as 'Your overall analysis objective. Be specific about what you want to understand and why.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'complex analysis goals' but not providing additional syntax or format details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Breaks down complex analysis goals into a step-by-step plan' and 'helps you plan multi-step analysis.' It specifies the verb ('breaks down') and resource ('complex analysis goals'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like gemini_iterate_analysis or gemini_synthesize_findings, which might involve similar analysis processes.

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 by stating it's for 'complex analysis goals' and 'multi-step analysis,' suggesting it's for decomposing intricate objectives. It mentions 'You execute the suggested gemini commands yourself using your bash tools,' which hints at a planning role rather than execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_craft_prompt or gemini_iterate_analysis, leaving the context somewhat vague.

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