Gemini MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it checks status, returns different data based on processing state, and can save files. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'video data' specifically includes, leaving gaps for a mutation-adjacent operation.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by conditional outcomes, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The two-sentence parameter section is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality and parameters well but lacks details on return formats (what 'video data' entails), error cases, or system constraints. For a tool that interacts with potentially long-running operations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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%, providing solid baseline documentation. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies that operationId is optional and defaults to 'last operation,' and explains the purpose of outputPath ('to save the video file when complete'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: 'Check the status of a video generation operation' and specifies what it returns in different scenarios. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on status checking rather than generation (gemini-video-generate) or other AI tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 when to use this tool (after initiating video generation) by referencing 'operation ID from gemini-video-generate' and describing status checking behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or any exclusions, relying on contextual inference from the sibling tool reference.

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