gemini_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: output contents, session_id creation, disk persistence, and context preservation across calls. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the disclosed session behavior and return format go beyond a vague 'sends a prompt'.

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 well-structured with clear sections (MODEL SELECTION, SESSION CONTINUITY) and a front-loaded one-sentence summary. It is longer than average but every section serves a purpose, and the formatting makes it scannable. Minor redundancy with the schema prevents a 5.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, model selection, session continuity, and prompt requirements comprehensively. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. This is a complete, self-sufficient description for an agent to successfully invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing model-choice semantics in a dedicated section and emphasizing the prompt-writing rules, even though the schema also details these. It also adds the output contract ('Returns response text, model used, and session_id') which is not in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Send a detailed prompt to the Gemini CLI. Returns response text, model used, and session_id.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_send_message and qwen_prompt.

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 detailed context for model selection by task complexity (default, complex, bulk) and explains session continuity, which serves as practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like qwen_prompt or opencode_send_message, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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