gemini_cli_execute_async

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. It meaningfully discloses the key non-obvious traits: background execution, immediate return, task_id generation, and deferred result retrieval. It does not cover failure modes or task lifecycle cleanup, but the core caller-affecting behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the retrieval instruction is placed immediately after, making the tool's usage flow easy to parse.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential flow but leaves gaps around parameter interactions and when async should be preferred over sync execution. It is minimally adequate for selection and invocation but not richly complete.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantic guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start a Gemini CLI task in the background and return immediately with a task_id.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sync sibling by emphasizing background execution and immediate return, and it names the follow-up retrieval path.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use gemini_cli_check_result to retrieve the result,' giving clear follow-up usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast this with gemini_cli_execute for choosing sync vs async, so it lacks a full exclusion statement.

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