gemini_followup_task

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

With annotations already declaring destructive=true and non-idempotent, the description adds useful behavioral detail: idle agents start a new run, running agents receive steering at the next boundary, and workspace/capabilities remain fixed. It still doesn't explain what 'destructive' means in practice or what permissions are required, but the annotations lower that burden.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by conditional runtime behavior and scope constraints. Every sentence adds value with no wasted text.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the central follow-up semantics but omits parameter details and the practical consequences of destruction. An agent can understand the intent but not the required invocation details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never defines 'target' or 'message'. The phrase 'same Gemini agent' hints that target identifies an agent and message is an instruction, but neither parameter's format, constraints, or semantics are clarified.

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 states a specific action ('Continue work') on a specific resource ('the same Gemini agent and retained context'). It distinguishes follow-up continuation from spawning a new agent, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like gemini_send_message.

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?

It implies usage by describing the continuation scenario and how idle vs. running agents behave. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus gemini_spawn_agent or gemini_send_message.

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