Gemini MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the three analysis types but doesn't describe what each type actually does, expected outputs, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is too vague about the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence lists the available analysis types. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the different analysis types actually produce, how results are returned, or provide any guidance on the more complex parameters like provider, model, or prompt. The description leaves too much undefined for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the three task options but the schema already documents these with enum values and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '코드를 분석합니다' (analyzes code) and specifies the three analysis types available (review, explain, improve). It uses a specific verb ('분석합니다') with a clear resource ('코드'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_image or analyze_pdf beyond the code focus.

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 context by listing the three analysis types (review, explain, improve), suggesting when different modes might be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like generate_text, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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