gemini_rewrite

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context — that factual and literal technical content are preserved and results should not be repeatedly polished — but says nothing about the surprising zh-CN language default, style behavior, or single-pass execution.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-structured; the low parameter coverage is a completeness issue rather than a verbosity one.

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?

A 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain the controls, especially the non-obvious zh-CN language default and the instruction/attempt parameters. The description addresses none of these.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. It never mentions style, language (default zh-CN), instruction, or max_attempts, leaving four parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (restructure) and resource (prose) plus the key invariant: facts and literal technical content are preserved. This distinguishes it conceptually from a generic polish pass, though it never names gemini_polish, which is the closest sibling.

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 only usage signal is the negative instruction 'Do not repeatedly polish the result,' which hints at a difference from gemini_polish without explaining when to choose this tool over it. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, no explicit routing to alternatives.

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