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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It partially delivers by stating the two statuses and that the result is available conditionally, but it omits failure/error states, whether repeated polling is safe or expected, and any timeout or staleness behavior. For an unannotated tool this is a noticeable gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The core action ('Check the status') is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently discloses the return behavior.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description adequately covers main purpose and return values. However, without an output schema it leaves the exact response shape undocumented, and failure states are unaddressed, so the agent may not know how to interpret an unsuccessful task.

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 description need not add parameter detail; the task_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of an async Gemini CLI task'), and clarifies it returns 'running/completed status and the result if available.' This semantically distinguishes it from the execute siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: checking status is the natural follow-up to gemini_cli_execute_async, and the schema's task_id description references that sibling. However, the main description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer gemini_cli_execute instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that execution is synchronous and supports interactive/non-interactive prompts, but omits side effects, return values, timeout behavior, and safety implications of running CLI commands. For a command-execution tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no meaningful bloat, and the key synchronous behavior is front-loaded. It loses a point for the slightly generic 'with configurable parameters' phrase, which adds little information, but overall it is efficiently written.

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 15 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return value semantics, output format behavior, timeout handling, and any warnings about potential system effects, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, with all 15 parameters documented in the input schema. The description only says 'configurable parameters' and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Execute Gemini CLI synchronously') and clearly distinguishes itself from the async sibling by emphasizing synchronous mode. Also notes support for both interactive and non-interactive prompts, giving a clear functional identity.

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 word 'synchronously' implies use when blocking execution is desired, and the sibling names hint at an async alternative. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over gemini_cli_execute_async or how gemini_cli_check_result fits in, leaving the selection largely to inference.

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

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 meaningfully discloses the key non-obvious traits: background execution, immediate return, task_id generation, and deferred result retrieval. It does not cover failure modes or task lifecycle cleanup, but the core caller-affecting behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the retrieval instruction is placed immediately after, making the tool's usage flow easy to parse.

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 tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential flow but leaves gaps around parameter interactions and when async should be preferred over sync execution. It is minimally adequate for selection and invocation but not richly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantic guidance beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start a Gemini CLI task in the background and return immediately with a task_id.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sync sibling by emphasizing background execution and immediate return, and it names the follow-up retrieval path.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use gemini_cli_check_result to retrieve the result,' giving clear follow-up usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast this with gemini_cli_execute for choosing sync vs async, so it lacks a full exclusion statement.

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