run_antigravity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only safe queries are executed, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't detail authentication, state changes, or error behaviors. The 'safe queries only' statement adds some context, but more would be expected.

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 concise at two sentences and immediately states its scope. However, the opening 'Compatibilidade:' is an odd label rather than an action verb, which slightly reduces clarity, but overall it is compact and to the point.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, how cwd/args are handled, or what the subcommands (models, help, changelog) output. It covers the tool's basic intent but lacks sufficient behavioral and operational detail for a complex tool.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented within the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

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 it executes safe queries from the Antigravity CLI, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning that prompt-related tasks should use consult_model or compare_models, though it does not list the exact safe subcommands.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: use this for safe queries, and for prompts prefer consult_model or compare_models. This clearly defines when to use the tool versus alternatives, satisfying the dimension fully.

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