run_development_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the workflow phases and mentions use of Codex and Antigravity, but does not disclose failure modes, side effects, persistence, or performance impacts. Adequate but not rich.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and phases; the second names the specific sub-tools used. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 agent does not know what the tool returns. The description is high-level and does not specify return format, error handling, or how to interpret the orchestration result. For a complex tool with 9 parameters, more completeness is warranted.

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 100%, so descriptions already document each parameter. The tool description adds a high-level workflow context but does not elaborate on how specific parameters (e.g., skipPlan, maxIterations) affect the behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 orchestrates a full development workflow (plan→implement→review→fix→verify) and distinguishes it from siblings by naming specific sub-tools (Codex for planning/review/verify, Antigravity for implementation). It provides a specific verb and resource with clear scope.

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 when to use the tool (for orchestrating a full development workflow) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools show granular options, but no guidance on choosing this vs. individual steps.

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