open_antigravity_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states it is an alias and offers no information about side effects, permissions, whether it launches a new process, or what happens to an existing Antigravity session. The behavior is entirely delegated to another tool's definition, which is not included here.

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 words, and it front-loads the alias relationship. It earns its place but is arguably too terse, providing only routing information without any behavioral or parameter context.

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?

With only one required string parameter and an output schema present, the definition could have been minimally complete by explaining the path format and the expected effect. Instead, it leaves all behavioral details to another tool's definition. An agent using this tool in isolation would not know what 'open' means for Antigravity or how to construct a correct path.

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 provides no explanation of the 'path' parameter beyond its name. An agent cannot infer whether path should be a directory path, a workspace URI, an absolute or relative path, or what format is expected. The description adds no value over the bare schema field.

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 clearly states that this tool is an alias for open_workspace_in_ide and specifically targets Antigravity IDE, which conveys the verb (open) and resource (workspace in Antigravity). It distinguishes itself from generic open_workspace_in_ide by naming the IDE, though it relies on the referenced tool for the full meaning of 'open workspace.'

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 phrasing 'Alias for open_workspace_in_ide with Antigravity IDE' implies this tool should be used when the target IDE is Antigravity and the generic tool would otherwise be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over launch_antigravity_workspace or open_workspace_in_ide, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions.

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