Prepare an Antigravity team review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: 'It inventories artifacts and includes deterministic manifest issues when a manifest is available.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences long, each conveying essential information. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds relevant detail. No superfluous text.

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 has no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior. However, it lacks details about the output (e.g., what the review brief contains) and does not mention any prerequisites or subsequent steps. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 50% (manifestPath has a description, goal does not). The description adds context about using a manifest and inventorying artifacts, which clarifies manifestPath's role. However, it does not explain the 'goal' parameter beyond its default value. This provides moderate added value but not full compensation.

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 explicitly states the tool builds an 'evidence-first review brief with four parallel roles' for a specific context ('Antigravity /teamwork-preview'). This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (discover_map_artifacts, inspect_map_views, validate_map_manifest).

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a manifest discovered) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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