Gemini MCP

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 mentions 'AI insights' but doesn't explain what this entails—such as whether it's a read-only scan, requires authentication, has rate limits, or produces destructive changes. The term 'analysis' is vague, failing to clarify the tool's operational traits beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured (e.g., by separating purpose from context). It earns its place by conveying the essential idea without waste.

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 complexity implied by 'comprehensive codebase analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis includes, the format of results, or behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (path, reportType, includeAnalysis). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Comprehensive codebase analysis with AI insights' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'codebase analysis' as the resource and 'comprehensive' as a vague scope, but doesn't specify what actions are performed (e.g., scanning, reviewing, summarizing) or how it differs from siblings like 'code_analyze' or 'codereview_expert'. This is a tautology that restates the name's concept without concrete differentiation.

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 alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to code analysis (e.g., 'code_analyze', 'codereview_expert', 'debug_analysis'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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