gemini_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does valuable work: it documents default model resolution (GEMINI_MODEL or gemini-flash-latest), retry-with-backoff on rate limits/outages, and fallback to GEMINI_FALLBACK_MODELS. It omits auth/API-key requirements and latency or cost implications, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then appends compact per-parameter notes. Every sentence adds information, though the run-on model sentence could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description still notes the text-answer return. It covers defaults and failure behavior, which is the main risk area for an external LLM call; only auth requirements and the token limit remain unaddressed.

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 compensate, and it explains only 2 of 4 parameters (`model` and `system`). `prompt` is self-evident from its name, but `max_output_tokens` (default 2048) is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb (ask), resource (Google Gemini), and the return type (its text answer). There are no sibling tools to disambiguate against, and the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 (a question-in/text-answer-out operation) and explains fallback behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no siblings this is acceptable but thin.

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