Gemini MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool continues a conversation but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (e.g., does it modify conversation history?), any authentication or rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid conversationId), or the expected response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second sentence provides essential usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by adding value beyond the tool name or schema.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (continuing a conversation with two required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and output information. This makes it adequate as a minimum viable description but with clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('conversationId' and 'prompt') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Continue a Gemini conversation by providing the conversation ID and prompt.' This specifies the verb ('continue') and resource ('Gemini conversation'), making it distinct from its siblings like 'gemini' (likely to start a conversation) or media-specific tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gemini-image' or 'gemini-video-check' in terms of conversation continuation versus media handling.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to continue a multi-turn conversation started with the 'gemini' tool.' This explicitly links it to the sibling 'gemini' tool and indicates it's for follow-up interactions. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it (e.g., versus using 'gemini' for a new conversation or media tools for non-text inputs), which prevents a perfect score.

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