run_antigravity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses synchronous execution, a bounded timeout, automatic conversion to a background job, YOLO autonomous execution, and terminal sandboxing. It does not cover side effects like workspace writes or permission implications, but the key runtime behaviors are disclosed.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second covers the most important behavioral distinctions. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential runtime contract: new task, synchronous wait, timeout guard, and background-job fallback. The schema fills in parameter details, and sibling tools cover follow-up actions, so only minor gaps remain (e.g., exact return shape).

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters individually. The description adds high-level context by mentioning YOLO and sandboxing, but it does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 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 action: 'Start a NEW task using Google Antigravity AI Agent (agy).' It also adds distinguishing behavioral details such as synchronous execution and timeout-guard conversion to a background job, which separates it from continuation and job-management siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling antigravity_start.

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 conveys useful context: it is for new tasks, runs synchronously up to a timeout, and automatically converts to background execution. But it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives like antigravity_start for long-running/background workflows, nor does it direct the agent to antigravity_job_status/result after conversion.

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