agy_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists capabilities (write code, analyze files, run commands) but omits critical behavioral traits such as potential file modifications, permission prompts, or the risks of the yolo flag. The description does not warn that executing commands could have side effects.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences that state the core purpose and key capabilities without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

This is a complex task runner with six parameters and no output schema, but the description gives minimal context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how modes (accept-edits/plan) affect behavior, or how it relates to specialized siblings like agy_sandbox_agent or agy_autonomous_agent. The description is too sparse for a tool with this complexity.

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 all 6 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond stating the tool runs tasks, so it stays at the baseline for schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a task using Google Antigravity CLI (agy)' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like agy_chat and agy_analyze by mentioning capabilities such as writing code, analyzing workspace files, and running commands.

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 usage for general task execution but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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