ask_antigravity

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, but it provides none. It does not mention side effects, permissions, request routing, or any observable behavior beyond being an alias. This is a complete absence of behavioral transparency.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It loses the opportunity to add any useful information and does not front-load a clear purpose.

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?

Even though the input schema is simple and an output schema exists, the description is fundamentally incomplete for a tool that an agent must invoke correctly. It does not explain the core behavior, when to use it, or how the prompt parameter should be handled.

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 schema's only parameter, prompt, has no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate at all; it says nothing about what prompt means, how it is used, or what format it should take.

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 only states that the tool is an alias for delegate_to_opencode, which does not actually specify what the tool does, what action it performs, or what resource it acts on. It relies entirely on the reader knowing the semantics of delegate_to_opencode. Without that, the purpose is vague and indirect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use ask_antigravity versus any of its siblings such as delegate_to_antigravity or continue_opencode. The alias relationship implies interchangeability with delegate_to_opencode, but no context, conditions, or exclusions are given.

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