Gemini 单轮对话

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior such as statelessness, attachment support, and default model, but omits operational details including authentication, rate limits, latency, and whether the call has side effects beyond sending content to Gemini.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key constraints. No filler.

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 6-parameter chat tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: single-turn, stateless, optional local attachments, and default model. Remaining parameter details are delegated to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the absolute-path nuance for attachments and repeats file-type/default-model information already present in the schema; it does not explain system or max_tokens.

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 states a specific verb and resource: initiate a one-off Gemini conversation (向 Gemini 发起一次独立对话) and clarifies it is stateless (不保留上下文), which distinguishes it from a multi-turn chat tool. Attachments and default model are also named, so an agent can identify the tool's scope immediately.

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?

No sibling tools exist, and the description supplies the key usage context: use it for an independent single-turn conversation, optionally with local attachments, and no prior context is kept. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the stateless single-turn scope is clear.

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