gemini_analyze_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what output it produces. The analysis_type enum includes potentially misleading values like 'refactor' and 'optimize' without explaining whether code is actually modified.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, the brevity contributes to the under-specification of usage details, making it less useful than it could be.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and multiple analysis modes, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain the behavior of different analysis_type values, expected outputs, or prerequisites, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 description adds no information about the parameters beyond the schema. Schema coverage is only 67%, and the analysis_type parameter lacks a description, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the enum values or how file_path and language are used.

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 function: using Gemini CLI to analyze and explain code functionality. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'explain') and a resource ('code'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like gemini_code_review or gemini_suggest_improvements, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description is too generic to help an agent decide between this and other Gemini-based analysis tools.

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