consult_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-interactive execution and the output format (raw text + structured metadata), which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network calls, cost, or failure modes, so transparency is incomplete. Score 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, mode, and output. There is no wasted wording, so it earns a 5 for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives a high-level overview but lacks specifics about the metadata structure and parameter interactions. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive, so score 3.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it appropriately stays at the baseline.

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 'Consulta um modelo externo via Antigravity em modo nao interativo e retorna texto bruto mais metadata estruturada' clearly states the tool's purpose: it consults an external model via Antigravity in non-interactive mode and returns raw text plus structured metadata. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like run_antigravity (which may be interactive) and run_codex.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for non-interactive consultation of an external model via Antigravity. It implies usage but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to siblings, so it lacks exclusions. This earns a 4.

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