gemini_query

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses authentication method (locally authenticated CLI), safety controls (sandbox, yolo, approval modes), and file referencing (@path). However, misses return format, error behavior, and side effects of auto-approve modes.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by model support, file syntax, and options list. Efficiently packs 8 parameters worth of context into four brief statements. Minor deduction for the slightly telegraphic 'Options:' list which could flow better.

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?

Covers key capabilities well for a complex 8-parameter tool: authentication, model flexibility, file inclusion, workspace directories, and safety modes. Absence of output schema is mitigated by clear description of what the tool does, though mention of return format would improve completeness.

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?

Adds conceptual value beyond 100% schema coverage by explaining @path syntax for file references and grouping related boolean flags (sandbox, yolo) under 'Options'. Schema handles individual parameter docs; description provides usage context.

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 specific action (Send), resource (prompt to Google Gemini), and mechanism (locally authenticated CLI). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'gemini_info' by focusing on active querying vs. information retrieval.

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?

Implies usage through 'Send a prompt' and lists capabilities, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use gemini_info instead, or when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., when file contexts are inappropriate).

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