get_antigravity_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, no-turn operation and enumerates what is returned, but says nothing about permissions, quota implications, or whether the 'account quota' read has any cost or freshness caveat.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource contents are listed compactly and the differentiator is placed at the end where it reads naturally.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned data is helpful, and no annotations means the safety profile falls to it (reasonably implied as read-only). The undocumented 'workspace' parameter and absent quota/permission caveats leave gaps.

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 single 'workspace' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on what it scopes or what the default (null) means. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus the exact resource contents: models, effort options, and account quota. The phrase 'without an agent turn' implicitly separates it from the ask_antigravity sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Without an agent turn' implies this is the cheap, side-effect-free lookup as opposed to asking the agent, which is a usable contextual cue. However, it neither names the alternative (ask_antigravity) nor states explicit when/when-not conditions.

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