consult_gemini

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool's purpose and usage scenarios, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential costs/rate limits, response format expectations, or any authentication requirements. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of usage scenarios. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet points could potentially be more concise, but overall the structure is effective with minimal wasted space.

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 of consulting an AI system, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual factors like response format, error conditions, rate limits, or what constitutes a successful consultation. For a tool that interacts with an external AI service, more behavioral context is needed.

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% description coverage, with both parameters ('query' and 'context') clearly documented in the schema itself. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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's purpose: 'Consult Gemini AI for a second opinion or advice.' This specifies the action (consult) and resource (Gemini AI). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'collaborate_on_code' - both could involve AI assistance, so the distinction isn't articulated.

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 explicit usage guidelines with a bulleted list of four specific scenarios: validation of approach, uncertainty about decisions, different perspectives, and expert technical advice. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool, though it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly contrast with the sibling tool.

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