delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that this is 'raw' delegation with full tool access (shell, file reads, web) in a given cwd, which is crucial for understanding the tool's power and potential side effects. However, it doesn't mention output behavior or run duration, so not a perfect score.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides key differentiators and capabilities with zero wasted words.

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 raw delegation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: it explains the tool's scope (heavy tasks), capabilities (full tool access), and working directory (cwd). It could mention that prompts should be detailed or that execution may be long, but the essentials are covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the 'given cwd' but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. 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's purpose: raw delegation to the Antigravity CLI for heavy tasks. It uses a specific verb ('delegation') and resource ('Antigravity CLI'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly targeting tasks that 'don't fit the other tools'.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('heavy tasks that don't fit the other tools'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools for lighter tasks. The description also highlights agy's full tool access, which hints at appropriate use cases, but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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