ask_gemini

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the action and modes, omitting details such as whether the tool is stateless, rate limits, permission requirements, or what happens if context is malformed. Minimal behavioral information is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and primary use cases, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description minimally covers the input and purpose but omits what the agent can expect as a return value or any error handling. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description could be more complete, though it is adequate for basic use.

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 input schema already explains both parameters (context and question) adequately. The description's phrase 'general second opinion' partly echoes the schema's default behavior for missing question, adding little extra meaning. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (ask Gemini) and resource (Google Gemini), with two distinct use cases: asking a question about a context or getting a general second opinion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ask_chatgpt or ask_deepseek, relying on the name for distinction.

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 two usage modes but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings (ask_chatgpt, ask_deepseek) or when to choose one mode over the other. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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