Retrieve the status and output of an Antigravity worker run, optionally waiting up to 30 seconds for progress or final results.
Read a worker run and optionally wait up to 30 seconds for progress or completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| wait_ms | No | ||
| include_prompt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation behavior: optional waiting and the fact that it surfaces progress or completion. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, response shape, or what happens after the wait expires, so it only partially enriches the behavioral picture.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then adds the key optional behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy with the schema.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this description is noticeably thin. It covers the core read and wait behavior but leaves include_prompt, the return format, and the distinction between waiting and immediate return unspecified. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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 must compensate. It does clarify run_id (the run to read) and wait_ms (wait up to 30 seconds for progress/completion), but it says nothing about include_prompt. Two of three parameters gain meaning, but one remains entirely unexplained.
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 and resource: 'Read a worker run.' It also distinguishes this from siblings like get_media_run by narrowing to 'worker run,' and the title 'Read Antigravity run' adds product context. An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.
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 usage context: use this to read a run, with optional blocking up to 30 seconds for progress or completion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is evident enough for an agent to select it over list_runs or get_media_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.