gemini_request

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

The description discloses a non-obvious execution behavior: it runs synchronously but auto-defers to a pollable job past the sync deadline, and otherwise runs to completion. This goes beyond the annotations, which already flag the tool as non-read-only and destructive. It does not elaborate on side effects, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers that risk profile.

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 compact — two sentences — and front-loads the primary action before the execution caveat and input requirement. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema content or verbose context.

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 32-parameter provider tool with no output schema and no explicit return-value description, the high-level description is adequate but not complete. It does not summarize what the caller gets back, what 'pollable job' means in practice, or how the destructive nature of the CLI should affect invocation choices. The rich schema covers parameter-level details, but the description leaves some operational context implicit.

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 beyond the schema by stating the critical cardinality invariant: exactly one of prompt or promptParts must be supplied. That constraint is encoded in the parameter descriptions but not as a top-level schema rule, so the explicit advisory is genuinely helpful.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: running a Google Antigravity CLI (`agy`) request through the Gemini-compatible gateway tool. It also clarifies the synchronous execution mode, which distinguishes it from the async sibling tools. The phrase 'synchronously' plus the auto-defer behavior makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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 gives useful execution context — synchronous by default, auto-deferring to a pollable job when async jobs are enabled — but it never explicitly names the async sibling or says when to prefer it. A caller can infer the usage model, but the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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