gemini_propose_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool generates plans and that they are intended for execution by another AI, implying no direct execution. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limits (e.g., whether it calls a Gemini service or is purely local). This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds value: 'Use Gemini CLI,' 'generate a detailed implementation plan,' and 'for another AI to follow.'

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the nature of the generated plans ('structured, step-by-step'). It does not specify the exact output format or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (prompt and conversation_history), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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: 'generate a detailed implementation plan for another AI to follow.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like code review or architecture validation, which focus on analysis rather than planning.

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 when to use the tool (when another AI needs a plan to execute) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, though it lacks a direct contrast with sibling tools.

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