delegate_to_antigravity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that behavior matches delegate_to_opencode, but says nothing about side effects, authentication needs, errors, or what happens on invocation. The behavioral traits are merely delegated to another tool rather than described.

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 text is short and free of filler, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single sentence that delegates all meaning to another tool does not earn its place as a usable definition.

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?

Despite having an output schema and two parameters, the description does not explain behavior, expected return, or when to invoke this tool. It is only self-sufficient if the agent separately resolves delegate_to_opencode's full documentation, so it is incomplete in context.

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 adds no meaning to either parameter. The agent gets no explanation of what 'prompt' should contain or how workspace_path affects behavior. This is a complete failure to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 only that this tool is an alias for delegate_to_opencode. It communicates a relationship to a sibling, so it is not a pure tautology, but it never explains what delegation does or which resource it affects. An agent must dereference the sibling's documentation to learn the actual purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this alias vs delegate_to_opencode or get_antigravity_status. There is no stated condition, exclusion, or alternative; the agent is left to infer that both aliases are interchangeable.

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