gemini_send_message

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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context about how messages are handled in JSON versus native mode, including stale action discarding and steering timing. Some phrases like 'native changes remain' are vague, but overall it provides more than structured fields alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense with agent-mode jargon and some phrasing is confusing. Several clauses could be tightened without losing meaning, though the information is relevant.

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 messaging tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description gives useful behavioral detail but omits explicit routing relative to siblings and leaves parameter meanings under-specified. It covers some behavioral complexity but not enough to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only vaguely characterizes target as 'named or identified Gemini agent' and says nothing about message format or constraints, leaving the parameters largely undocumented.

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 first sentence states a clear verb and resource: send a message to a named or identified Gemini agent. It is specific enough to know what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as gemini_agent_submit or gemini_followup_task.

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 usage conditions through agent states — waiting agents resume, completed agents retain messages — but it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternative messaging tools or interrupt/cancel tools. Guidance is indirect and leaves the agent to infer the right context.

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