antigravity_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a fast local read with zero token cost, and specifies the return content (user prompts, tools executed, command outputs, conclusions). It does not mention auth or edge cases, but for a read-only operation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and the second adds relevant behavioral context. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the nature of the operation. It lacks caveats about missing conversations or pagination beyond max_steps, but these are minor given the simplicity.

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 mentions 'by ID' for conversation_id and 'recent steps' for max_steps, but these add no substantive meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The performance note is not parameter-specific.

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 (Read), resource (execution transcript), and scope (by ID), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like antigravity_sessions (list) and antigravity_job_status (status). The phrase 'detailed execution transcript' leaves no ambiguity about what is retrieved.

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 clearly implies the use case (reading step-by-step history of a session) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. It is obvious when to use it vs. listing sessions, but no direct comparison is given.

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