start_media_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: 'Inputs are copied into a per-run isolated Git workspace', which informs the agent about the isolation and copying behavior. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details like how results are returned, but the core behavioral disclosure beyond annotations is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a relevant behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the isolated workspace behavior. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a run ID) or how to retrieve results, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond files being supplied. While sibling tools like get_media_run exist, the description does not direct the agent to them. Given the complexity, some details are missing.

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 63%, so most parameters (task, file_paths, model, context, model_policy) already have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics; it does not explain the purpose of effort, max_retries, or timeout_minutes which lack schema descriptions. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 the verb 'Analyze' with a specific resource: explicitly supplied files including images, PDFs, audio, video, documents, datasets, etc. It also mentions 'Antigravity's native multimodal capabilities', which distinguishes it from text-only analysis tools. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like start_analysis.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions specific use cases, prerequisites, nor exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools such as start_analysis or start_review, so an agent has no explicit criteria for selecting this tool over others.

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