gemini_chat_with_tools

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 the mode-switching behavior but does not address other behavioral traits like statefulness, conversation history, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key functionality (mode switching). Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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?

The description covers the basic functionality and modes, but given the complexity of a multi-mode chat tool, it lacks details on how chat context is maintained, how tool invocation works, and what 'everything' entails. The schema covers all parameters, so completeness is minimally adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the mode enum values already in the schema, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 is a flexible Gemini chat with mode switching, listing three distinct modes (search, code, all). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like gemini_chat, gemini_code_execute, and gemini_search_grounded.

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 explains the modes and their capabilities, providing implicit guidance on when to use each mode. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools, such as recommending gemini_code_execute for pure code execution or gemini_chat for simple chat.

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