gemini_polish

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by promising that specific token classes will not be altered during polishing, which is a constraint annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing the return value or latency, so it is additive but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the preservation contract is packed into one list. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a tool with four optional parameters that need explaining.

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?

There is no output schema and no explanation of how four optional parameters shape the result, so an agent cannot tell what it will get back or how to steer the polishing. For a five-parameter text-transformation tool, the definition leaves too much to guesswork.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description says nothing about 'style', 'language', 'instruction' or 'max_attempts'. Only the required 'text' parameter is loosely implied by 'expression'. With the schema fully silent, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 pairs a specific verb ('polish') with a resource ('expression') and adds a concrete preservation contract: facts, numbers, names, URLs, paths, commands and identifiers. That contract distinguishes it meaningfully from gemini_rewrite, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 never states when to use this tool rather than gemini_rewrite, nor when it is inappropriate. The preserve-list hints at the intended scope, but an agent is left to infer the trigger conditions from the name alone.

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