ask_antigravity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and mostly doesn't. It hints at an "isolated temporary" workspace/Bridge (some sandboxing signal), but says nothing about authentication, whether the delegation is synchronous, the 300s default timeout's consequences, or what happens if the turn times out.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is a virtue, but the sentence is cryptic rather than front-loaded with the essential use case. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than disciplined editing.

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 six-parameter delegation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to set tool_policy, reasoning_effort, or timeout, nor what a delegated turn returns.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only "workspace" is alluded to (and cryptically via "Bridge"); model, prompt, tool_policy, reasoning_effort, and turn_timeout_seconds are 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 does give a verb and a target ("Delegate to Antigravity"), so the agent can infer it sends a prompt to that engine. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings like ask_agent or ask_codex, and the second clause ("workspace starts an isolated temporary Bridge") is jargon that obscures rather than clarifies the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over ask_agent, ask_codex, or get_antigravity_info — the sibling set makes that routing decision essential. The reader must guess that this is for delegating a prompt to the Antigravity engine specifically.

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