get_antigravity_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is a query/read, which implies non-mutating behavior, and scopes the query to 'currently active workspaces' in the local IDE. It does not mention error cases, whether it contacts a remote service, or how 'active' is determined, but for a parameterless query tool the description is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentence that states the action, the target ('workspaces'), the state filter ('currently active'), and the scope ('local IDE') without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 parameterless query tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what to call and roughly what to expect. However, given the large sibling set and the lack of annotations, it would be stronger if it clarified how this differs from related tools or when 'currently active' matters. The output schema likely covers return shape, so the main gap is usage 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter-related information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Query currently active workspaces in local IDE.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the environment it operates in. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_antigravity_status or inspect_antigravity_workspace, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_antigravity_workspace or open_antigravity_workspace. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings.

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