launch_antigravity_workspace

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. It doesn't mention what happens on launch (e.g., does it block until the app exits? Does it detach or stream logs? Does it require specific state like workspace loaded or antigravity running?). The phrase 'detected launcher' implies automatique detection, but there'ss no detail about what happens if no launcher is found or if the path is invalid. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action ('Launch') and the object ('application in workspace'). However, it's somewhat underspecified, which borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Given the il_min_rich oc_schema (one simple parameter) and no output_schema (skip→ false unless provided), the description must be self-sufficient. nIt isn't: it doesn't explain what 'antigravity' is, what a 'detected launcher' means, what the output will be, or what to do when launcher detection fails. For a launch operation with operational risk (fires a process), this is incomplete. An agent would likely need to ask for clarification.

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 doesn't add any parameter details. The only parameter is 'path', which is self-explanatory from its name and required status. However, the description doesn't specify what kind of path is expected (absolute/relative, to the workspace root, to an executable, etc.). With one simple required parameter and a basic name, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but it could have added clearer semantics by specifying the expected format.

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 specific action ('Launch application in workspace') and a mechanism ('using detected launcher'), which gives a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't clarify what 'antigravity workspace' refers to or how it differs from sibling tools like 'open_workspace_in_ide' or 'launch_antigravity_workspace' (if it's a sibling itself, which it isn't). The verb+resource is present, but the context is vague enough that an agent might confuse it with other launch or open tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the workspace must already be open or if antigravity is running), nor does it distinguish when to use this over 'open_workspace_in_ide' or 'delegate_to_opencode'. The 'using detected launcher' is a slight hint but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not conditions.

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