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. It mentions supported image types and formats, but lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, output format, error handling, or whether the analysis is destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('이미지를 분석합니다'), followed by supporting details. It uses two sentences efficiently, though the second sentence could be more structured. There's no unnecessary repetition, making it appropriately concise for 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It covers the purpose and supported formats but misses behavioral context (e.g., how results are returned, limitations) and doesn't compensate for the lack of structured output information. This is inadequate for guiding an agent effectively.

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 fully documents all parameters (source, prompt, model, provider). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating supported image formats in Korean, which partially overlaps with the source parameter's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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: '이미지를 분석합니다' (analyzes images) with specific examples of supported image types (screenshots, charts, diagrams, photos) and formats (JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_code and analyze_pdf by focusing on images, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with generate_text.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions supported image types and formats, but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for choosing this over sibling tools like analyze_code or generate_text. Usage is implied through context rather than stated.

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