diagnose_antigravity_workspace

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 says 'run project diagnostics' without stating whether the operation is read-only, whether it executes commands or modifies files, whether it requires network access, or what the output actually contains. The existence of fix_antigravity_workspace suggests diagnostics is analysis-only, but that is left to inference.

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 a single seven-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler words. It is efficient and readable, though it is brief to the point of under-specification — that deficiency is more appropriately penalized in the purpose, parameter, and behavioral dimensions.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the definition omits the safety profile (no annotations), the meaning of the sole required parameter, and the functional boundary against at least three overlapping siblings. For a tool an agent is expected to invoke with a user-supplied path, this description leaves too much 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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It only weakly implies that 'path' is a local workspace path via the phrase 'local workspace,' but it does not explain whether the path is a directory or file, whether it must already exist, whether it should be absolute, or what happens if it is invalid. With a single required parameter, this is a meaningful gap.

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 clear verb (run) and target (project diagnostics in local workspace), but 'diagnostics' itself is underspecified and the description does nothing to distinguish it from heavily overlapping siblings such as inspect_antigravity_workspace, get_antigravity_status, and fix_antigravity_workspace. The verb essentially restates the tool name ('diagnose' → 'diagnostics'), adding little information.

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 this tool versus the 14 sibling tools. Notably, inspect_antigravity_workspace, get_antigravity_workspace, and get_antigravity_status plausibly overlap with running diagnostics, yet no exclusion criteria or routing hints are provided. An agent has no basis to select this tool over its near-name twins.

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