antigravity_job_status

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 reveals that the tool is fast (<20ms), shows elapsed time, process alive status, and latest tool execution actions, which gives a clear picture of its output and non-destructive nature. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a read-only status check, this is adequate.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds performance and output details without any redundant phrasing. Every word serves a function, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, how fast it responds, and what it returns. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but given the low complexity and the presence of sibling tools, the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 already provides a complete description of job_id, including its origin from antigravity_start or graceful timeout fallback, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'real-time progress and live step status of a background job', which is distinct from siblings like antigravity_job_result (final result) and antigravity_start (initiation). It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 implies usage for monitoring an in-progress job by highlighting 'real-time' and 'live step status', and the performance note 'returns in < 20ms' suggests it is suitable for frequent polling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like antigravity_job_result or state when to stop using it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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