collaborate_on_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It outlines the collaborative steps (PRD creation, tech stack decision, code generation/refinement) but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to intermediate outputs. The description is insufficient for a tool with complex multi-step 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?

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that efficiently outline the collaboration process and outcome. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the numbered steps could be slightly more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex multi-step collaboration process, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the format or structure of the returned 'final code', what happens during the iterative dialogue, or how errors or interruptions are handled. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'request' documented as 'What to build'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 enables collaboration with Gemini to develop code through iterative dialogue, specifying the verb 'collaborate' and resource 'code'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'consult_gemini' by emphasizing joint development rather than consultation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 for code development projects requiring iterative collaboration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'consult_gemini' or other alternatives. It mentions the collaborative process but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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