gemini_check_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields (authenticated, method, detail, suggestion) and instructs reading the suggestion when false. It implies a read-only check but could be more explicit about side effects or subprocess behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, clear usage directive, and useful return behavior. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a simple check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, return values, and next-step behavior, making it adequate for agent decision-making.

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 has 100% coverage for the single timeout_seconds parameter, which is fully described. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles it.

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 what the tool does: 'Check whether the Gemini CLI is authenticated' before gemini_prompt calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qwen_check_auth by specifying Gemini specifically.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Always call this first if you are unsure whether Gemini is set up' and 'before making any gemini_prompt calls.' This provides clear when-to-use context relative to the prompt tool.

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