gemini_code_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that execution is synchronous and that the tool returns an answer, but it omits limits, permissions, latency/cost implications, and error behavior for a large-context model call.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core capability, and includes the synchronous-return behavior without wasted wording.

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?

It covers the basic purpose and synchronous return behavior, which is helpful given no annotations and no output schema. However, it leaves out practical constraints such as file count limits, output format expectations, and how workspace_path inference works.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, context_files, and workspace_path. The description reinforces multi-file scanning and question answering but adds no additional meaning for workspace_path or file-path constraints.

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 states a specific action: scan multiple repository files with a large-context model and answer architectural or code questions. This clearly distinguishes it from workspace/job-management siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with dispatch_gemini_agent.

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 gives an implied usage context by saying to use it for multi-file scanning and architectural/code questions. However, it does not specify when to choose this over dispatch_gemini_agent or when this tool is inappropriate.

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