continue_antigravity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is an alias, not what side effects exist, whether it resumes an interaction, what happens to the workspace, or what permissions are needed. The alias statement adds minimal transparency but leaves the core behavior undisclosed.

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 and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single alias reference cannot substitute for the functional information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool.

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?

This is a three-parameter tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a description that merely points to a sibling. Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves the tool's purpose, side effects, and argument semantics almost entirely unspecified.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about interaction_id, prompt, or workspace_path. With all parameters effectively undocumented in both schema and description, an agent has no semantic grounding for constructing arguments beyond their names.

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 'Alias for continue_opencode' does not state what the tool does; it only references another tool by name. An agent must look up continue_opencode to understand the operation, so the purpose is effectively deferred rather than clarified. It is nearly tautological, substituting the sibling name for a functional explanation.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as continue_opencode or delegate_to_opencode. The alias relationship implies identical usage, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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