ask-gemini

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Alias for ask-antigravity' reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, statefulness, or operation type. The description is behaviorally empty.

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 description is one sentence long, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It communicates only an alias relationship and provides no real content. This is under-specification, not efficient brevity.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the alias-only description is wholly insufficient. An agent cannot correctly determine required inputs or expected behavior. Even with an output schema, this definition is incomplete.

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%, and the description compensates with no parameter information whatsoever. All 11 parameters, including model, effort, prompt, resume, system, and conversation_id, receive no explanation in either schema or description. This is a severe gap.

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 only states that this tool is an alias for ask-antigravity, without specifying the actual function. It does not mention asking questions, generating responses, or interacting with a model, so an agent cannot determine the tool's purpose from the description alone. It is not a strict tautology, but it's a cross-reference that provides no substantive meaning.

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 equivalence with ask-antigravity but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. The alias nuance is weak guidance at best.

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