agy_autonomous_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for conveying behavioral traits. It does disclose key safety-relevant behaviors: the agent automatically approves modifications and runs commands. However, it does not mention sandboxing, reversibility, execution environment, or potential long-running behavior, leaving important gaps for a high-risk autonomous tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and behavioral key points. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complex autonomous agent tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, how long it may run, and whether the environment is sandboxed. It only gives an overview and omits these critical details, making it incomplete for a tool that can modify and execute commands.

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 description provides no information about any of the three parameters. Schema coverage is 67% (prompt and cwd have descriptions, model does not), but the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'model' parameter or add any context beyond the schema. The parameter semantics are therefore weak.

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 tool's action ('Run') and specific resource ('Antigravity agent in fully autonomous mode'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like agy_chat or agy_task by emphasizing the autonomous nature. The scope is well-defined and not a tautology.

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 implies this tool is for autonomous execution ('fully autonomous mode', 'automatically approves modifications') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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