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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for URL/local file inputs but doesn't describe what the analysis does, what the output looks like, whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences in Korean, with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical information about the analysis type.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and sibling tools requiring differentiation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what analysis means, what results to expect, or how this differs from other analysis tools. For an analytical tool with multiple configuration options, this leaves too much undefined for the agent.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning URL/local file support for the 'source' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'PDF 문서를 분석합니다' (analyzes PDF documents), which provides a basic verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't specify what kind of analysis is performed (text extraction, structure analysis, content summarization, etc.) or how it differs from sibling tools like analyze_code or analyze_image. The purpose is clear but vague about the specific analytical function.

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 mentions 'URL 또는 로컬 파일 경로를 지원합니다' (supports URL or local file paths), which provides some technical context about input types. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus analyze_code or analyze_image, nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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