run_antigravity_coding_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'compact responses with persisted diagnostics' and 'Git-verified commits' but does not disclose key traits such as potential destructiveness, required permissions, or 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?

Two sentences, but dense with technical jargon ('execute/plan contracts', 'acceptance-test traceability'). Could be more accessible without sacrificing meaning.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: return values, error handling, and usage workflow are not explained. The tool is complex, but the description is too high-level.

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 coverage is low (33% of parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the gap. For example, the meaning of 'allowExecution' and 'planApproved' remain unclear from description alone.

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 it is a 'coding execution tool' that invokes Antigravity CLI, distinguishing from sibling planning and review tools. The purpose is specific and resource-oriented, though jargon-heavy.

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?

Mentions support for 'execute/plan contracts' and 'Git-verified commits', implying use for execution tasks. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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