gemini

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavioral traits. It discloses what is returned (model text, interaction_id, model, usage metadata, status), a safety guarantee ('Never returns credentials'), and the conditional behavior of store=true generating a conversation_id. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, it covers the most critical behavior for an AI agent selecting this tool.

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 four sentences, approximately 70 words, with each sentence contributing unique information: purpose, default model, store mechanism, return values and safety. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant filler, making it highly efficient.

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 tool complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's operation, return fields, and conversation continuation. It does not cover error scenarios or detailed response formatting, but the schema covers parameter specifics, and the description lists the key output components.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between store and previous_interaction_id, and by stating the default model, which complements the schema. It does not describe every parameter but enriches the context for the conversation flow.

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 function: 'Send a prompt to the local Antigravity CLI and return the model text output.' This is specific with a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'gemini_models', missing the chance to contrast with a likely model-listing tool.

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 provides useful context about the default model, store=true for conversation continuation, and return values. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gemini_models) or any when-not scenarios. The usage is implied but not explicitly framed as a choice.

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